HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/27/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
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
October 27, 2015
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. CSU Stadium IGA Update. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Jeff Mihelich, Mark Jackson; 10 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review key elements of the intergovernmental agreement with
Colorado State University, progress made on capital and operational planning, and formation of the
Stadium Advisory Group. The City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
Colorado State University on April 13, 2015, delineating various elements of infrastructure
commitments and operating agreements related to the new on campus stadium. The IGA calls for an
evaluation and progress report on projects requiring additional study but not included in the original
document within six months of IGA adoption. Staff will also present potential IGA amendments for
Council discussion.
STRATEGIC PLAN LINKAGES: Transportation, Community and Neighborhood Livability
2. Short Term Rental Activity. (staff: Ginny Sawyer, Clay Frickey, Ted Shepard; 10 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide an overview and background information on short term rental
(STR) activity, most typically referred to as Vacation Rental by Owner (VRBO) or Airbnb, within Fort
Collins. With the increase in the cyber or sharing economy, communities nationwide are determining
if and how to regulate this use at a local level to best protect neighborhoods and address quality of
life issues.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Long Term Financial Planning. (staff: Mike Beckstead, Andres Gavaldon, John Voss; 10 minute
staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The goal of Long Term Financial Planning is to identify issues which will be addressed in the
Strategic Plan process. This project highlights potential challenges over the next 10 years and seeks
to aid in decision-making on possible solution strategies. The analysis brings awareness to
alignment considerations between financial capacity and service level objectives. With an
awareness of these issues, decision makers can have a meaningful discussion with a long-range
perspective.
4. Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership. (staff: Josh Birks, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead;
10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is for City Council to review the proposed public private partnership with the
Fort Collins Hotel developer to construct a 323 stall parking garage structure. The structure will
contain parking for the hotel and approximately 216 public parking spaces to meet future parking
demands in the Old Town Historic District and River District.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
October 27, 2015
Mark Jackson, PDT Deputy Director
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
CSU Stadium IGA Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review key elements of the intergovernmental agreement with Colorado State
University, progress made on capital and operational planning, and formation of the Stadium Advisory Group.
The City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Colorado State University on April 13, 2015,
delineating various elements of infrastructure commitments and operating agreements related to the new on
campus stadium. The IGA calls for an evaluation and progress report on projects requiring additional study but
not included in the original document within six months of IGA adoption. Staff will also present potential IGA
amendments for Council discussion.
STRATEGIC PLAN LINKAGES: Transportation, Community and Neighborhood Livability
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have questions or feedback concerning CSU stadium-related construction projects?
2. Staff identifies several potential amendments to the IGA based on ongoing discussion with CSU. Does
Council have questions or feedback concerning the proposed amendments or process?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since entering into an IGA with Colorado State University (CSU) regarding the on campus stadium, staff from
each agency have met regularly to discuss infrastructure improvements, construction impacts, and relative
timeline for projects. Conversations have also begun in terms of game day operational planning. Per terms of the
IGA, CSU and the City have also formed a Stadium Advisory Group.
Progress Updates: Neighborhood Relationships
Stadium Advisory Group
The IGA specified formation of a Stadium Advisory Group (SAG) to be comprised of community residents. The
role of the SAG is to examine actual impacts and community interactions as a new stadium is put to use for home
football games, commencement ceremonies, and other activities. The SAG will occasionally present
recommendations to the City and CSU regarding stadium issues that impact local residents, and will make
recommendations regarding the use of CSU’s Good Neighbor Fund. The group is anticipated to meet quarterly.
The following individuals accepted the invitation to serve on the SAG:
Amanda Johnson-King, Odell Brewing Company
Gary Buffington Larimer County Natural Resources Department Director
Bob Herrfeldt, Director-The Ranch (Larimer County)
Steve Taylor, Owner: Moot House, Austin’s and Enzio’s restaurants
Per Hogestad, retired CSU faculty, member City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Committee
Colin Gerety, Owner: Momo Lolo Coffee House
1
Packet Pg. 3
October 27, 2015 Page 2
Mitch Majeski, Pastor, Summit View Church
Ben Manvel, retired CSU professor, former City Councilmember
Carol Reed, Sheely Neighborhood resident; Cityworks 101 Alumnus
Good Neighbor Fund
CSU committed to conduct fundraising efforts to establish a Good Neighbor Fund, intended to lessen or mitigate
undesirable or unintended impacts to local neighborhoods. The Fund will be administered and maintained by CSU
or an associated foundation. The goal of this Fund is to create an endowment of $750,000. During the fundraising
process, CSU will commit $37,500 annually to proposals submitted in the spirit of the Fund. Staff is confirming
with CSU whether the funding contribution will begin in 2016 or in 2017, concurrent with opening of the stadium.
CSU Neighborhood Meetings
CSU hosted a series of neighborhood meetings for community members and business owners who would like to
learn more about construction projects on campus, ask questions or provide their feedback. City staff attended
these meetings as a resource and listened to feedback. Meetings were scheduled for October 12, 21, and 26.
Progress Update: Game Day Operational Planning
Game day operational planning and coordination with CSU involves numerous City departments, including
Parking Services, Police Services, Special Event Coordination, Traffic Operations, and Transfort. Conceptual
level planning meetings are occurring with CSU staff to discuss options and issues. CSU and the City have been
informally discussing options for event operations during various meeting. An initial kickoff meeting between CSU
and the City was held July 16th to discuss operations. This meeting began the effort to establish an outline for
game day operations, and focused on operations decisions that might impact infrastructure decisions being made
now. A half day planning workshop with CSU and City Staff is scheduled for November 3, 2015.
Operational plans/agreements to be developed in 2016 include:
Major Event Coordination Plan (CSU, City): To include traffic control, game-day communications, and
identification of operations costs incurred by the City of Fort Collins. To be developed no less than one
year in advance of a Major Event (defined as an event exceeding 12,000 persons).
Law Enforcement Special Event Mutual Assistance Agreement: CSU, the City, and other local agencies
currently operate under a Mutual Assistance Agreement allowing for inter-agency collaboration during
game day. A similar or modified agreement will be discussed and developed in 2016.
Traffic and Parking Plan: CSU is developing a traffic management and campus parking plan for major
events at the stadium. CSU is working with City staff to identify issues and best practices to handle multi-
modal traffic (auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) into and out of the stadium area before and after
events. The Plan will also identify heightened or special parking enforcement in areas around the campus
during major events.
City Public Transportation Services (Transfort): CSU and the City are discussing provision of additional
transit service to accommodate game day and major events.
Litter and Trash: CSU will establish and implement a litter abatement program for all events held at the
Stadium, including removal and recycling. CSU will work with the City and the SAG to identify and
address problems resulting from stadium-related events. This effort has not yet begun; anticipated in
2016.
Game Day Activities Working Group: CSU has established a Game Day Experience committee to
develop plans for game day events, including tailgating and on campus parking. City Staff will soon be
asked to join the working group and sub-committees to help plan game day operational activities and
address issues and concerns.
1
Packet Pg. 4
October 27, 2015 Page 3
Progress Update: Infrastructure and Related Improvements
Construction Coordination
CSU and City Transportation staff meet biweekly to discuss coordination and mitigation of stadium and other
campus construction impacts on nearby infrastructure, businesses, and residents. City staff from Engineering,
Traffic Operations, Transfort, and FC Moves departments meet with CSU staff and project managers to discuss
project timing, schedule coordination with City projects, and traffic impacts and routing for the Stadium as well as
other CSU construction projects underway. Smaller project-specific meetings between City and CSU staff are
occurring as needed. In addition to these ongoing regular coordination meetings, a full time City of Fort Collins
inspector is assigned to the CSU construction projects. The inspector attends weekly project meetings, and
monitors day to day construction activity.
Utilities Coordination
City Utilities entered into a separate IGA with CSU concerning main campus stormwater impacts. Utilities Staff is
working with CSU to review stadium-related plans dealing with wastewater capacity improvements.
Conversations are underway with CSU about Utilities managing some downstream mitigation projects. See
potential IGA amendments section. Utilities staff meets monthly with CSU to coordinate and discuss project
needs, progress, and impacts.
Transportation Improvements
CSU agreed to construct or fund several transportation infrastructure improvements prior to the first Major Event
held at the Stadium. The current statuses of these projects are as follows:
1. Improvements at Prospect Road and Centre Avenue
a. Addition of a second left turn lane on both the northbound and southbound intersection approaches;
b. Grade-separated crossing of Prospect Road for pedestrians and bicycles;
Status: Concept layouts, feasibility, and preliminary design are complete. The project is currently being bid for
final design and construction has been awarded. Project is under design. CSU assumes all costs for this
project. CSU has awarded the bid, and construction is scheduled to commence November of 2016.
2. Improvements at Elizabeth Street and Shields Street
a. Lane improvements;
Status: City and CSU are working to determine appropriate lane improvements; to be coordinated with the
Shields/Elizabeth grade separated crossing study. CSU will assume all costs for the lane improvements.
3. Improvements at College Avenue and Lake Street
a. Modification of left turn geometry on northbound College Avenue at Lake Street;
Status: Design is finished and completion is expected to occur in conjunction with CDOT US287 overlay project.
City assumes all costs for project.
4. Improvements at Washington Street and Laurel Street
a. Enhanced pedestrian crossing;
Status: Project currently under design, with construction in 2016. CSU assumes all costs for this project.
1
Packet Pg. 5
October 27, 2015 Page 4
5. Improvements at Sherwood Street and Laurel Street
a. Enhanced pedestrian crossing;
Status: Project currently under design, with construction in 2016. CSU assumes all costs for this project.
6. Improvements on Lake Street
a. Bike/pedestrian improvements;
Status: Discussions are underway, with City staff reviewing designs. The focus to date has been on
bike/pedestrian accommodations during construction. CSU and City staff meet regularly to discuss temporary
construction access, routing, and parking issues along Lake Street. CSU assumes all costs for interim pedestrian
and street improvements. Interim improvements will focus on ADA compliant sidewalks, complete sidewalk
connectivity for both sides of Lake from Shields and College, and improved bicycle infrastructure. The City and
CSU will share costs to repave Lake Street (mill and overlay). CSU will accommodate the ultimate footprint for
Lake Street as identified in the West Central Area Plan as redevelopment occurs.
7. Main Campus Pedestrian Improvements
a. Sidewalk improvements on Whitcomb Street between Prospect Road and Lake Street;
Status: In addition to the sidewalk improvements noted in 7.a, turning radius improvements have been identified
at the intersection of Whitcomb and Prospect to accommodate transit movements and are currently under design.
8. Parking Improvements (Independent of the Stadium)
a. Continued operation of main campus Lake Street parking garage;
Status: Complete
b. Construction of additional main campus parking garage (approximately 400 net new parking spaces); and
Status: Design complete, project has gone through City process and construction begun. Project includes lane
improvements on eastbound Pitkin approach to College and re-routed trail connection to College underpass.
c. Construction of additional surface parking off of Research Boulevard (approximately 900 parking spaces)
Status: Surface lot construction is complete. 10 minute headway Around the Horn shuttle service is provided to
the main campus. Improvements include westbound right turn lane on Drake to Research Boulevard. Right turn
lane construction scheduled to start mid October 2015.
9. Signage Improvements
a. Wayfinding signage to new Stadium location;
b. Wayfinding signage to new event parking;
c. Signage in surrounding neighborhoods; and
d. New interstate signage to Stadium;
Status: Project not yet begun
10. Traffic Responsive Signal System to support operational capabilities for Stadium events
Status: Project not yet begun. CSU is working with City Traffic Operations to identify improvements.
1
Packet Pg. 6
October 27, 2015 Page 5
11. Alternative Transportation Support and Growth
a. Continued funding for Around the Horn and Main-to-Foothills Campus shuttles.
b. Employee and student access to MAX rapid transit service.
Status: Around the Horn and MAX service agreements are in place. CSU is discussing adding transit service from
its main campus to the Foothills Campus.
Projects Requiring Additional or Ongoing Study
CSU and the City recognized that several proposed projects were raised in early planning stages and were not
ready for inclusion into the formal IGA. CSU and the City agreed to meet in good faith to discuss any jointly
identified needs and solutions as the evaluation process moved forward, and report on the progress of that
evaluation no later than six months after the execution of the IGA. The Parties agreed that ongoing efforts to
evaluate and analyze the need for and feasibility of these improvements will continue to completion and that
periodic reports on this ongoing work will be provided to the City Manager and the University President. Project
responsibility will be based on specific technical analyses including generally accepted engineering standards
which shall be completed as part of this evaluation. The Parties are fully committed to implementing the following
projects as soon as practicable:
1. Shields Street grade-separated pedestrian and bike crossings or other improvements to address crossing
issues
Status: The preferred location for the grade-separated crossing is identified as Shields/Elizabeth. The feasibility
and conceptual cost estimates are complete. While CSU and the City believe the underpass at Shields and
Elizabeth is the best solution, this needs to be verified with a complete engineering study. The study and
preliminary design will determine the best path forward.
2. Prospect Corridor Improvements
a. Improvements are outlined in the West Central Area Plan, but most multi-modal improvements such as
the multi-use path are most beneficial for the stadium.
Status: No specific work has yet been done between CSU and the City. Planning and segmented implementation
are being discussed with adjacent development proposals.
3. Intersection Improvements
a. Improvements to Prospect and College Avenue intersection
Status: Two intersection projects are proposed for this location. Responsibility of costs for each project and
agency are assigned on the basis of forecast traffic impacts caused by CSU projects compared to existing
deficiencies and community background traffic increases that are the City’s responsibility.
CSU agreed to make improvements to western portions of the intersection in proportion to the predicted traffic
impacts related to multiple on-campus projects. CSU improvements include: modification of the northwest corner
of the intersection to accommodate dual left turn lanes from Prospect to College, raised median on Prospect
between the BNNR right-of-way and College Avenue, Transfort bus turn out, and bike and pedestrian
improvements per the West Central Neighborhood Plan. The City estimates conceptual cost estimates for the
CSU portion of the intersection total $2.2 to $2.5 million.
The City of Fort Collins, in order to take advantage of the timing of planned CSU improvements at this location,
submitted a mid-cycle budget proposal to complete improvements to the Prospect/College intersection. This
project would address existing problems and is in proportion to the community’s share of increased traffic at this
location. Cost estimates for the City project total $2.7 million, and include design, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction.
1
Packet Pg. 7
October 27, 2015 Page 6
Attachment 2 reflects planned improvements and respective responsibilities for the Prospect/College intersection
projects.
The City and CSU will closely coordinate these two projects, and may seek a common bidder to better organize
construction activities. Construction for both projects is estimated to occur March through July of 2017.
b. Improvements to the Lake Street/Centre Avenue Intersection
Status: This project is under design. CSU and the City are working to identify optimal intersection improvements.
CSU assumes all costs for the project.
Potential IGA Amendments
More details and direction have emerged on some projects as a result of ongoing discussions between CSU and
the City. Funding partnerships for design work and project management likely require amending the IGA to
establish a mechanism to transfer funds between agencies. Potential amendments to be discussed with CSU
include:
1. Shields/Elizabeth Grade Separated Crossing Agreement to share design costs
CSU and the City agree to share engineering and design costs for the grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
crossing to be located on Shields Street. The preferred location is at or near Elizabeth Street. The City will
perform surveying for the project.
2. Waste Water Construction Project agreement
One impact identified in the development process for the CSU stadium is an overcapacity issue in the City’s
sanitary sewer interceptor main along Spring Creek where it crosses under College Avenue. The stadium project
has the responsibility to replace this main with a larger size pipe prior to the stadium being put into use in 2017.
CSU requested that the Utility Capital Projects team perform this construction work and be reimbursed by the
University. If the Utility agrees to take this on, it will have an impact on the Utility's ability to deliver projects due to
limited staff resources. Next steps include creation of an agreement for the preliminary design and cost estimation
work, total project construction and project management costs, and development of a reimbursement agreement.
3. Prospect/College intersection intent to collaborate
CSU and the City intend to collaborate on the Prospect/College intersection projects in order to coordinate
scheduling and work activities. This may include seeking a common bidder to better coordinate activities.
IGA Amendment Process: Section 8 of the IGA notes that “although the Parties agree to meet to discuss any
proposed amendments to the Agreement as part of any periodic review, neither Party is obligated to agree to any
subsequent amendment to the Agreement and its provisions.” Subsections 8.A and 8.B allow for the Parties to
negotiate and discuss addenda to the IGA to document updated requirements for infrastructure improvements.
Following Council feedback, Staff will prepare draft amendments for discussion with CSU.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (PDF)
2. College/Prospect Conceptual Improvements (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 8
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1.1
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City of Foft Collins/CSU signed Stadium IGA (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1"=80'
CONCEPTUAL TURN LANE AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
20
COLLEGE AND PROSPECT CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
LEGEND:
COLORADO STATE OBLIGATIONS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS IMPROVEMENTS
GENERAL NOTES:
1. THIS IS A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TURN LANE AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
2. TURN LANE LENGTHS AND GEOMETRY WILL BE FINALIZED WITH THE ENGINEERING DESIGN
3. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT
4. UNDERGROUND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME
5. THE EXTENT OF WORK ON COLLEGE AVENUE HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME
6. CONSTRUCTION PHASING HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME
7. THE CITY WILL PERFORM THE ASPHALT OVERLAY ON PROSPECT (STREET MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES)
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\CSU_City Exhibit.dwg, 10/13/2015 1:14:22 PM
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: College/Prospect Conceptual Improvements (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
1
Jeff Mihelich
Deputy City Manager
October 27, 2014
CSU Stadium
Intergovernmental
Agreement:
Six Month Update
Transportation;
Community and
Neighborhood Livability
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
CSU-City Agreement:
IGA signed with CSU April, 2015:
• Neighborhood Relationships
• Environmental Considerations
• Operational Planning
• Infrastructure Improvements
• Projects Needing More Study
2
1.3
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Six Month Update:
Progress made:
• Stadium Advisory Group
• Event Operational Planning
• Transportation Improvements Made
• New Transportation Improvements
Underway
• Proposed Amendments
3
1.3
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Questions for Council:
1. Does Council have questions or feedback concerning
CSU stadium-related construction projects?
2. Staff identifies several potential amendments to the IGA
based on ongoing discussion with CSU. Does Council
have questions or feedback concerning the proposed
amendments or process?
4
1.3
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Neighborhood Relationships
Stadium Advisory Group:
• Committee appointed by CSU President and City Manager
• Representatives from CSU, citizens, and business interests
• Will meet quarterly
Good Neighbor Fund:
• CSU to establish fundraising for mitigating impacts to
neighborhoods (goal: $750,000)
• CSU to seed with $37,500 per year until goals reached
5
1.3
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Neighborhood Relationships
Stadium Advisory Group:
• Amanda Johnson-King: Odell Brewing Company
• Gary Buffington: Larimer County Natural Resources Department Director
• Bob Herrfeldt: Director – The Ranch (Larimer County)
• Steve Taylor: Owner, Moot House, Austin’s, Enzio’s restaurants
• Per Hogestad: Retired CSU faculty, member City of Fort Collins Landmark
Preservation Committee
• Colin Gerety: Owner, Momo Lolo Coffee House
• Mitch Majeski: Pastor, Summit View Church
• Ben Manvel: Retired CSU Professor, former City Council member
• Carol Reed: Sheely Neighborhood resident; Cityworks 101 Alumnus
6
1.3
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Event Operational Planning
City and CSU Staff Coordination:
• Traffic
• Transit
• Parking
• Police and Emergency Services
• November Planning Workshop
CSU Game Day Experience Committee:
• Tailgating, On-Campus Parking
• City Staff to participate
7
1.3
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Context Map
8
Prospect Rd.
Lake St.
Pitkin St.
College Ave.
Shields St.
Meridian Ave.
1.3
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Intersection and Ped Improvements
Prospect/Centre Avenue
• Turn lanes & grade-separated
crossing
• 100% CSU
• Fall 2016 construction
Shields/Elizabeth Intersection
• Lane improvements
• CSU and City working to identify
proper improvements
9
Laurel
Shields
Prospect
College
1.3
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Laurel
Shields
Prospect
College
Lake
Intersection and Ped Improvements
College/Lake Improvements
• Modification of LT geometry
• 100% City
• Improved with 2016 CDOT overlay
project
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings
• Laurel St., Washington & Sherwood
• 100% CSU
• 2016 construction
10
1.3
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Laurel
Shields
Prospect
College
Lake
Bike/Ped Improvements
Lake St. Improvements (interim)
• 100% CSU
• ADA sidewalks
• Sidewalk connectivity
• Improved bicycle infrastructure
• CSU and City to share repaving
costs of Lake St.
• Ultimate Lake St. improvements to
occur with development
11
1.3
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Interim Lake Street Improvements
12
1.3
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Ultimate Lake Street Improvements
West Central Area Plan
13
1.3
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Laurel
Shields
Prospect
College
Lake
Pedestrian Improvements
Main Campus Pedestrian
Improvements on Whitcomb
• Sidewalk improvements
• Bus turning radius improvements
• 100% CSU
14
1.3
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Laurel
Shields
Prospect
College
Lake
Parking Improvements
Surface and Garage Parking
• 100% CSU
• Lake St. Parking Garage (ongoing)
• Construct additional 400 space
parking (underway)
• Construct new 900 space surface
lot (complete)
15
1.3
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Laurel
Shields
Prospect
College
Lake
New Improvements Underway
Shields St. Grade-Separated
Crossing
• Preferred location at Elizabeth St.
• Engineering study to determine
costs and design
16
1.3
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
New Improvements Underway
Prospect/College Intersection
• Two improvement projects:
1. CSU (west portion) ~$2.5M
• NW corner improvements
• Raised median
• Bus turn out
• Bike/Ped improvements
2. City (east portion and RT lanes)
• ~$2.7M
• Addresses existing
problems
17
1.3
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Proposed IGAAmendments
1. Shields /Elizabeth Grade Separated Crossing
• City to perform surveying
• Construction cost share TBD
2. Waste Water Construction Project
• CSU asked City to manage construction
• Preliminary design, construction estimates
• Total project construction and management costs
18
1.3
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Proposed IGAAmendments
3. Prospect/College Intersection intent to collaborate
• Coordinate project scheduling and work activities
• Explore common bidder approach
• Formalize cost share commitments
19
1.3
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Outstanding IGA Items
Yet to be resolved or completed:
• Responsibility for Shields St. grade-separated crossing
• Game day operations
• Traffic responsive signal system
• Prospect Corridor improvements (with development)
• Ultimate Lake Street improvements
20
1.3
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Next Steps
Process:
• Council feedback
• Attorney’s Office to draft suggested language
• Discussion with CSU
21
1.3
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
Questions for Council:
1. Does Council have questions or feedback concerning
CSU stadium-related construction projects?
2. Staff identifies several potential amendments to the IGA
based on ongoing discussion with CSU. Does Council
have questions or feedback concerning the proposed
amendments or process?
22
1.3
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3684 : CSU Stadium IGA Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 27, 2015
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
Clay Frickey, Associate Planner
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Short Term Rental Activity.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide an overview and background information on short term rental (STR) activity,
most typically referred to as Vacation Rental by Owner (VRBO) or Airbnb, within Fort Collins. With the increase in
the cyber or sharing economy, communities nationwide are determining if and how to regulate this use at a local
level to best protect neighborhoods and address quality of life issues.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council want to pursue regulations beyond the collection of Lodging Tax?
2. Is so, what specific concerns should a regulatory system address?
3. Does Council support addressing the concentration of Short Term Rental (STR) activity, particularly in
residential neighborhoods?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Short Term Rental (STR) refers to rental agreements for less than 30 days. In the past, short term rentals were
unique to resort communities who frequently saw vacationers seeking 5-10 day rental opportunities. With the
growth of online commerce and savvy technical platforms, the STR market has become much more mainstream
and widespread.
Vacation Rentals by Owner (VRBO) and Airbnb are two of the most widely known and used companies that cater
to the on-line short term rental market. This type of “sharing economy” activity has grown tremendously over the
last five years and there are numerous other on-line sites (Homeaway, Flipkey, Rentbyowner) with more entering
the market each year.
There are two main types of STRs:
A whole house rental where the owner or person in control of the property is not in the property
A shared rental where available rooms are rented while the owner or person in control of the property is
onsite.
Scale of the Issue
It is difficult to track the exact number of STR activity in Fort Collins or in any community. The Colorado
Association of Ski Towns (CAST) Vacation Home Rentals: Issues, Emerging Trends and Best Practices Report,
which was previously provided to Council, highlighted these challenges noting:
Exact address and owner contact information is not available on Airbnb and limited on other sites;
2
Packet Pg. 46
October 27, 2015 Page 2
Listings are inconsistent, with some providing street addresses and unit numbers and others not; and
VRBO no longer lists properties in the same order, meaning that new listings are harder to find.
There is also overlap between the sites with users putting listings on multiple sites. The following table
demonstrates the range of saturation of STRs in various communities.
Total Housing Units Listings on VR Websites % of Units Listed
Breckinridge 7,187 2,911 41%
Estes Park 4,176 301 7%
Boulder 44,370 514 1%
Durango 7,234 73 1%
Portland 200,000 1600 0.8%
Fort Collins 62,832 278 0.44%
Denver 290,496 1000 0.34%
*Breckinridge, Estes Park, and Durango cited in CAST report. Denver & Boulder numbers cited in city materials. Portland
taken from 2014 data. Fort Collins numbers not scrubbed for duplicates or confirmed as within city limits
The CAST report has also highlighted differing methods communities are using in an attempt to track this activity:
Each community pulls data manually and conducts a record-by-record search. While VHR (Vacation
Home Rental) addresses can eventually be identified, the process is time-consuming and can be
frustrating. VHR information is stored in MS Excel or Access and new listings are manually compared to
existing files.
In communities with licensing and permitting requirements, listed VHR’s are cross-checked with
licensing/permitting records to check compliance. If addresses are not found through the hosting sites,
communities use a combination of photos, online maps, condominium complex names, owner names
and/or property management names to locate a property. If an owner or property manager is known, they
can be contacted for an address. Maps may provide the general location, and photos make it possible to
identify the property upon driving to the area or comparing to ArcGIS and Google map street views. Some
conducting property searches are very familiar with the communities and can recognize most properties
from the photos while sitting at their desks.
Durango and Steamboat Springs both tried creating accounts on Airbnb to notify owners of their need to
comply with regulations. Both accounts were promptly canceled for violation of user agreements. Frisco
has had some success contacting owners through the hosting sites without incident - the small number of
properties in this community (under 30) may not have drawn the attention of the hosting sites.
Tax
Fort Collins is more fortunate than some communities in that its Tax Code has defined Lodging and is clear that
STR activity is required to pay Lodging Tax:
…the furnishing of rooms or accommodations by any person, partnership, association, corporation, estate
or any other combination of individuals by whatever name known to a person who for a consideration
uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess any room in a hotel, inn, bed and breakfast residence,
apartment hotel, lodging house, motor hotel, guest house, guest ranch, trailer coach, mobile home, auto
camp or trailer court, park or similar establishment, for a period of less than thirty (30) days under any
concession, permit, right of access, license to use or other agreement or otherwise.
Based on the questionnaire respondents, Fort Collins is currently seeing a higher rate of compliance from VRBO
operators (typically whole house rentals) compared to Airbnb (typically a shared space rental.) Over the last 6
months, the City has been attempting to track, locate, and notify STR operators who do not have a sales tax
license.
2
Packet Pg. 47
October 27, 2015 Page 3
The first notification letter was sent in June 2014. Subsequent letters were sent in November 2014 and in
September 2015. Since January 2015 licenses have increased from 43 to 71.
From January 1 to October 14, 2015 the City has collected:
$24,034 in Sales tax, and;
$18,414 in Lodging tax from these licenses.
Scope of Problem
Over the past two years, short term rental activity has come to the City’s attention through a variety of means,
including inquiries on permitting the use, concern regarding sales and lodging tax collection, and neighbor
complaints and emails to City Council.
From mid-July through the end of August 2015, staff provided an online questionnaire to help gauge community
thoughts on STR activity. Of the 784 respondents, 113 identified as operating a STR and 204 identified as living
near a STR. The full report results can be found at fcgov.com/vrbo.
Responses included:
Do you think VRBO/Airbnb activity should be regulated?
No - 348
Yes - 208
Maybe - 180
I don’t know - 56
If you have a concern with VRBO/Airbnb activity, which of the following apply (check all that apply):
Noise and nuisance - 48
Not knowing who is there - 46
Traffic and parking - 38
Over-occupancy - 37
This is a business that does not belong in a neighborhood - 33
Other - 5
The number of complaints in Fort Collins remains low relative to the estimated number of STRs. The concern over
this use has increased in the last two years with some expressing strong opinions for the City to take action
sooner rather than later. It is worth noting that those neighborhoods having a Homeowners Association (HOA)
can restrict this use through covenants.
The questionnaire generated more than 400 comments which staff themed into five general sentiments:
Not a problem/Do not regulate/Private property right. (152)
Support for reasonable regulations including tax collection.(85)
Miscellaneous including HOA questions, need more info, and STR consumer comments.(64)
STRs support tourism/cultural experiences. Good addition to the community. Valuable secondary income.
(55)
Not in favor. Do not allow. Not in residential areas.(44)
Interested in operating a STR in the future. (6)
Range of Options
In researching other communities it is clear that many are struggling to find the regulatory “sweet spot” that
addresses the defined problem and that enables effective enforcement. The CAST report notes:
2
Packet Pg. 48
October 27, 2015 Page 4
Simply prohibiting VHR’s will not make them go away. Units are still advertised and rented where they
are prohibited.
Communities with good intentions in adopting regulations have found that enforcing them is the weak
link. Cities have been unable to procure cooperation from hosting sites to not list illegal VHR’s nor to
provide them the information needed to locate VHR’s that are in violation of local or state regulations.
Regulations that restrict the number of days VHR’s may be rented or that require owner occupancy of
homes have been a particular challenge.
The CAST report also provides a “Best and Potential Practices” checklist. (Attachment 1) Potential regulatory
options tend to fall into the categories discussed below.
Definitions
Creating a definition for STRs is a needed step in any regulatory framework. Neither the Land Use Code (LUC)
nor the City Code currently define “short term rental.” There are definitions for Bed and Breakfast and Lodging,
neither of which accurately captures this relatively new activity.
Staff is considering differences between STR use and traditional Bed and Breakfast use, currently defined as:
Bed and breakfast shall mean an establishment operated in a private residence or portion thereof, which
provides temporary accommodations to overnight guests for a fee and which is occupied by the operator
of such establishment.
Bed and Breakfast are currently allowed in 16 zone districts.
While there is a perception that short term rentals in a residential home constitutes a business, the rental of rooms
from a Land Use Code perspective is considered a “residential” use and the collection of tax in and of itself does
not constitute a business.
Limiting Numbers and Concentration
Communities have utilized zoning, caps or percentage caps, and distance requirements between STRs to limit
the overall number. Each of these methods has benefits and challenges.
Registration/Licensing
There are multiple examples of communities’ registering or licensing STRs. These methods vary from a nominal
fee to register and a requirement to include registration number in all advertising to comprehensive licensing
requiring inspections, renewals, and possible revocation.
The CAST Report highlights the following:
Permits and licenses typically record necessary information regarding the VHR, such as number of
bedrooms, owner information, property manager or emergency contact information, use or occupancy
restrictions, among other requirements. In addition, to receive a permit or license, many communities
require the following:
Safety inspection: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Fe, Durango;
Proof of adequate property insurance coverage: Austin, San Francisco, Santa Fe; and
Permit or license number to be displayed on all advertising: Austin, Portland, San Francisco,
Santa Fe, Sonoma County, Bend, Oregon.
Neighbors may also need to be notified as part of the permit process. For example: Austin requires notice
be given to neighbors for public comment as part of the permit approval process, similar to other land use
applications.
2
Packet Pg. 49
October 27, 2015 Page 5
Many communities require notice to be sent to neighbors upon permit issuance. Notice may provide
neighbors with the address; terms of rental use or permit; contact information for a property manager,
owner or emergency contact in the event of problems; and the process for reporting violations or
complaints to the community’s enforcement office. This can be an effective tool to help neighbors know
about and police VHR activity in their area. Portland, Oregon, and Petaluma, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma
County in California require neighbor notice.
Most of the above communities also require annual renewal of permits or licenses. Yearly renewal
maintains a current list of active vacation rentals and contact information. Renewals may also be
withheld if VHR regulations have been violated, too many complaints have been received, applicable
taxes have not been paid, or if there are health and safety issues on the property. As an exception,
Portland requires renewal every two years, with a new inspection required every six years, barring a
change in owner, bedrooms rented, or cause for safety or violation concern.
Staff is confident that through a robust public engagement effort, research and utilizing experience from previous
City efforts, such as Illegal Duplexes (multi-year phase in approach with escalating fees), Fort Collins can develop
a unique, effective, and reasonable system to address STR activity and complaints.
Public Engagement
In addition to the online questionnaire, staff has met with both STR operators and neighbors. Many STR operators
have come forward and offered to share their experiences and best practices. These operators are very willing
and interested in being involved moving forward. As well, citizens interested in limiting and regulating STR
activity have also come forward and are working together.
Staff met with the Affordable Housing Board (Attachment 2) and the Planning and Zoning Board.
Staff also met with the Visit Fort Collins Board and the Board of Realtors.
All of these conversations recognized and spoke to the increasing popularity of STRs and the unique experience
STRs can bring to visitors. Many expressed a willingness to consider reasonable regulations with the Board of
Realtors being the most cautious towards over-regulating. None felt that STR activity was negatively impacting
housing affordability and many believe it is providing crucial secondary income to allow people to stay in their
homes.
Highlights from Research
Boulder, CO
Boulder voters will be considering a tax on short term rentals at the November. 3, 2015 election. If the tax does
not pass, the ordinance allowing short-term rentals will not go into effect. Instead, there will be an express
provision prohibiting short-term rentals.
Denver, CO
Working on developing a program: goals to include tax collection and a revocable license. Do not anticipate
having the capacity to inspect properties.
Durango, CO
Have permitted Tourist Homes since 1989. Recently updated for STR activity. Limit by total number in some
areas and by one-per block in other areas. Enforcement is biggest challenge.
Provo, Utah
An inspection of the property may be required prior to the issuance of a rental license. Information provided on the
application will be compared to original approval documents in the zoning office to determine the legal use and
2
Packet Pg. 50
October 27, 2015 Page 6
occupancy for the rental. Properties that were originally constructed as single family homes and have been
converted into two or more units may be inspected.
Sonoma County
Permit process in place. Maximum of 5 guestrooms. Limited to a maximum of 2 guests per guestroom plus 2
additional guests per property. The maximum number of guests allowed at any one time during the day is the
overnight occupancy limit +6.
Santa Barbara, CA
The City is aware that vacation rentals exist throughout the City and that most are operating in areas that do not
allow visitor stays of less than 30 days. The City Council has initiated a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define,
regulate and permit home sharing rentals. The first step will be a public hearing and discussion with the Planning
Commission to discuss the various ways this could be done.
Anaheim, CA
Permit program in place. Occupancy limit of three people per bedroom; plus two. Adopted a moratorium in
September 2015 initiating a temporary pause in issuing or renewing short-term rental permits or related
variances, building permits, business licenses and entitlements to analyze community and industry comments and
to consider additional rules and regulations that may be needed.
Bellevue, WA
Registration program. No more than five units in any building and no more than 20 percent of the dwelling units
comprising a development shall be used for Short Term Stay Use at any given time.
Next Steps
Based on direction received, staff anticipates initiating a thorough public engagement process including
stakeholder focus groups and larger public forums.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CAST Best and Potential Practices (PDF)
2. Affordable Housing Board minutes, October 1, 2015 (draft) (PDF)
3. Email from Lloyd Walker, September 16, 2015 (PDF)
4. Public Engagement Summary (PDF)
5. Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (PDF)
6. Work Session Summary, June 9, 2015 (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 51
Taken from the CAST Vacation Home Rentals-Issues, Emerging Trends and Best Practices Report (June 2015)
Best and Potential Practices
Tracking
Regulations
Licensing
Permits
Taxing
Staffing
Neighborhood
Impacts
Workforce
Housing
Post information within the VHR X X X
Require local manager/emergency contact X X X
Coordinate with jurisdictions in region X X X
Create website on VHR’s X X X
Require property inspections X X
Negotiate Airbnb agreement X X
Require license numbers to be on all listings X X
Give neighbors notice X X
Map licensed/permitted VHR’s X X
Establish fee to cover management costs X X
Coordinate tracking across departments X X
Publish VHR requirements in newspapers X X
Work with code enforcement on complaints X
Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb X
Restrict VHR concentration X
Implement more restrictive regulations
where impacts are higher
X
Give owners unique rights to short-term their
homes X
Permit bedroom rentals w/owners present X
Create separate categories for VHR’s
depending on time rented X
Dedicate/hire staff for license compliance X
Educate realtors about requirements X
Link complaints to legal vs illegal VHR’s X
Establish enforcement procedures and use
them
X
Revoke licenses/permits for violations X
Increase license fees to mitigate workforce
housing impacts
X
Collect VHR details on license or permit
applications
X
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: CAST Best and Potential Practices (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Taken from the CAST Vacation Home Rentals-Issues, Emerging Trends and Best Practices Report (June 2015)
Best and Potential Practices
Tracking
Regulations
Licensing
Permits
Taxing
Staffing
Neighborhood
Impacts
Workforce
Housing
Educate visitors that listings must have
license numbers X
Initiate state action to address 30-day limit
on sale taxation
X
Initiate state action to address how
properties are classified for property taxes
Assign community development lead
responsibility for VHR’s
X
Coordinate VHR’s w/ economic development X
Add staff specialist X
Hold stakeholder roundtables X
Impose occupancy limits X
Impose visitor limits X
Limit outdoor parties X
Manage trash X
Address parking X
Have general nuisance provision X
Use real estate database to track conversion
of housing into VHR’s
X
Create housing census X
Prohibit use of workforce housing for VHR’s X
Require check for workforce compliance
when licensing VHR’s
X
Allocate VHR revenue to housing X
Replace lost housing units X
2.1
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: CAST Best and Potential Practices (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Excerpt from Affordable Housing Board Minutes
October 1, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 1: Short Term Rentals—Ginny Sawyer
Vacation rentals issues have come to City attention over last two years, mostly through complaints.
Unregulated at this time. Any rental less than 30 days should pay lodging tax. Council has asked staff
to research. Online questionnaire, visiting boards, reaching out to vacation rental owners, bed and
breakfast owners, and complainants. Will have a public forum at a later date. Delineated between
vacation rental by owner (VBRO) versus Airbnb with property owner on site. However, a lot of units
are marketed as both. Most VBROs and Airbnbs have been operating less than 3 years. Around 120
total in Fort Collins. Very difficult to track. Majority are occupied more than 15 nights per month.
Have more compliance with sales and lodging tax with VRBO than Airbnb. Asked neighbors how
became aware they were living near a unit; majority said the owners informed them. Most neighbors
were not concerned, however concerns include operating a business in a neighborhood and character
change with transiency of occupant. Many do not feel should be regulated. Received 471 comments
on questionnaire. Benefits include supporting tourism, positive addition to community, and creating
valuable secondary income. Those who support regulations would like to see permitting, limiting the
number of occupants, self-certification, limiting the number of nights, requiring inspections, allowing
only in certain zones, limiting total number citywide, and meeting ADA standards. Overall
percentage of housing stock being used this way is less than 1%. Resort communities have much
larger scale of this activity. Going to Work Session to decide whether do nothing, ban, or have some
range of regulations. Many options through zoning, self-certifying, sales tax licensing, and
registration/permitting. Marketing sites are somewhat self-policing. It is in best interest of owner to
be safe, welcoming, etc.
Comments/Q&A
Sue: Durango has parking limitations.
o Ginny: Durango required a certain number of parking spaces per occupant.
Eloise: What is problem with collecting sales tax?
o Ginny: People knowing they need to collect it.
o Terence: Not creating employees, so people don’t think of this.
Curt: Even if municipality is not regulating, it is somewhat self-regulating. Guests and
owners can give negative feedback, which has consequences.
o Resort communities and large cities are concerned with this activity taking housing
off the market.
Troy: Of ones that rent out and owner is not on site, do people rent while on vacation and
otherwise live there, or use unoccupied home?
o Ginny: Both. A lot of communities have built in exemptions for those who only rent a
couple of times a year. Sometimes property is adjacent to primary residence or is a
carriage home. Communities are trying to crack down on absentee owners.
Diane: Explain community concerns.
o Ginny: Expectation that a residential area remains residential, not a business area.
Concern about not being able to know neighbors, character of neighborhood, noise,
etc. In multifamily people treat it as a hotel rather than a living place.
Sue: Regulations separate for different types?
o Ginny: Yes. Enforcement will be challenging. Secondary income becomes important.
Not always a guarantee that Airbnb owners are on site.
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Affordable Housing Board minutes, October 1, 2015 (draft) (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Curt: Trying to understand how this is a threat to affordable housing? 30% AMI and below
are not Airbnb clientele. And sites are not those that would be occupied by low income
residents.
o Sue: If you have a house that is vacation by owner, it is off the market for a family to
rent or buy as primary residence.
o Diane: Concern about percentage of housing stock in short term rentals can be
addressed by having a limited number of licenses/permits.
Curt: Then it is first come first served and eliminates opportunity.
Troy: Since most don’t feel it is a problem now, not the right time to regulate.
From affordable housing standpoint, not a problem to spend staff time trying
to fix.
o Sue: What about Airbnb helping affordability by providing income to owners?
Troy: Can help someone into move-up property.
Curt: Property taxes are going up. Look at secondary income as not
necessarily just discretionary.
Diane: Would not make a blanket statement that a good thing.
Sue: Has heard that this can help people keep property while un/under-
employed.
Ginny: Will continue to pursue education about sales and lodging tax.
Council has mentioned full blown rental licensing.
Curt: Could that become cost prohibitive?
Ginny: In Durango was $750 for first year to cover inspection and
less for annual renewal. Should Fort Collins begin
inspections/regulation now, while there are less than 200? Don’t want
it to be so onerous that people take it underground. Keep it safe and
get sales tax.
Diane: Does the City have liability if someone is injured?
o Ginny: Do we increase our liability if we inspect and license, but someone still gets
injured?
o Sue: For hotels we inspect, but are not liable for injuries.
Ginny: Will let Council know board’s comments in Work Session.
Troy: Heard from Estes Park that it is a contentious issue there. Surprised it is only 7%.
o Terence: A lot of second homes in Estes.
o Troy: 0.44% is not a problem yet, but 7% is. Need to find right proportion.
Sue: Bed and Breakfast comments on this?
o Ginny: Only two in Fort Collins and one is a hostel. The hostel completely supports
Airbnb, but would like to see it taxed.
Curt: If goes toward regulation, investors that are not on site need to have higher level
regulations. Too onerous for on-site owners.
2.2
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Affordable Housing Board minutes, October 1, 2015 (draft) (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Email from Lloyd Walker, September 16, 2015 (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: SHORT TERM RENTAL ACTIVITY (STR) WITHIN FORT COLLINS
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: INVOLVE
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION:
Do VRBO and Airbnb (STR) uses need to be regulated by the City of Fort Collins?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
- VRBO/AirBnD Operators
- Neighbors of VRBO/Airbnb Units
- Existing Bed and Breakfast and Hotel Operators
- Visit Fort Collins Board
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
- Affordable Housing Board: Oct 1, 2015
- Planning and Zoning Board
OTHER BOARDS AND COMMITTEES:
- Visit Fort Collins Board: September 22, 2015
- Fort Collins Board of Realtors Legislative Committee: October 20, 2015
TIMELINE: May – 2nd
Quarter 2016
Phase 1:
Timeframe: May-October 2015
Key Messages:
- The City is exploring perspectives on the operation of VRBOs and Airbnbs within our community to
determine if any action is needed.
- Share your experience/concerns regarding short term rentals.
Tools and Techniques:
- Focus groups with operators and those who have had personal experience as neighbors.
- Online Questionnaire: promoted through stakeholders, fcgov.com, and social media
- Meet with Boards and Committees
PHASE 2: TBD
Timeframe: October 2015 -
Key Messages:
- The City is exploring potential regulation for STR activity in Fort Collins.
Tools and Techniques:
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
DATE: October 20, 2015
SUBJECT: Sustainability Assessment (SA) Summary for
Key issues identified:
Suggested mitigation actions:
•
Economic 1.0 Social 1.0 Environmental
1.0
Rating Average
1.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Sustainability Rating
Rating without mitigation Rating with mitigation
Rating Legend
3 Very positive
2 Moderately positive
1 Slightly positive
0 Not relevant or neutral
-1 Slightly negative
-2 Moderately negative,
impact likely
-3 Very negative, impact
expected
ATTACHMENT 5
2.5
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
*The Fort Collins SAT was developed by modifying the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Tool developed by Eugene, Oregon, July 2009. 1
City of Fort Collins SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT)
(November 2014)
Creating a sustainable community
Plan Fort Collins is an expression of the community’s resolve to act sustainably: to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental,
human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we
depend.
How to use the tool
The Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT) is designed to inform a deeper understanding of how policy and program choices affect the social
equity, environmental health and economic health of the community. The City of Fort Collins has developed a Sustainability Assessment
Framework that describes the purpose, objectives, and guidelines to assist City Program/Project Managers to determine:
• The process for cross-department collaboration in using the SAT
• Timing for applying a SAT
• When to apply a SAT
• How to document the results of the SAT and present at City Council Work Sessions and Regular Council Meetings
Further detailed guidance is available at: http://citynet.fcgov.com/sustainability/sustainabilityassessments.php
The SAT does not dictate a particular course of action; rather, the analysis provides policy makers and staff with a greater awareness of some
of the trade-offs, benefits and consequences associated with a proposal, leading to more mindful decision-making.
Brief description of proposal
Please provide a brief description of your proposal – 100 words or less
Possible regulations of Short Term Rental (STR) use in Fort Collins.
Staff lead(s):
Please note staff name, position/division and phone number
Ginny Sawyer-CMO
2.5
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
2
Social Equity
Described: Placing priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including those pertaining to civil,
political, social, economic, and cultural concerns. Providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational opportunities, a
safe and healthy environment and social services. Eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion, and accommodating the
differences among people. Emphasizing justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all.
Goal/Outcome: It is our priority to support an equitable and adequate social system that ensures access to employment, food, housing, clothing,
education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Additionally, we support equal access to services and
seek to avoid negative impact for all people regardless of age, economic status, ability, immigration or citizenship status, race/ethnicity, gender,
relationship status, religion, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunities for all people are sought. A community in which basic human rights are
addressed, basic human needs are met, and all people have access to tools and resources to develop their capacity. This tool will help identify how
the proposal affects community members and if there is a difference in how the decisions affect one or more social groups. Areas of consideration in
creating a vibrant socially equitable Fort Collins are: basic needs, inclusion, community safety, culture, neighborhoods, and advancing social equity.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis.
Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan?
Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of
expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
Proposal Description
Regualtions could include registration, licensing, inspections, and limitation on
number or STRs.
1. Meeting Basic Human Needs
• How does the proposal impact access to food, shelter,
employment, health care, educational and recreational
opportunities, a safe and healthy living environment or
social services?
• Does this proposal affect the physical or mental health of
individuals, or the status of public health in our community?
• How does this proposal contribute to helping people achieve
and maintain an adequate standard of living, including housing,
or food affordability, employment opportunities, healthy families,
or other resiliency factors?
Analysis/Discussion
STR use provides additional income to FC homeowners and renters.
STR use can be attractive to investors.
2. Addressing Inequities and being Inclusive
• Are there any inequities to specific population subsets in this
proposal? If so, how will they be addressed?
• Does this proposal meet the standards of the Americans with
Disabilities Act?
• How does this proposal support the participation, growth
STRs could take homes off the traditional rental market, which further
suppresses supply and inflates rents. This could contribute to the further
gentrification of Fort Collins.
2.5
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
3
and healthy development of our youth? Does it include
Developmental Assets?
• If the proposal affects a vulnerable section of our community (i.e.
youth, persons with disabilities, etc.)
3. Ensuring Community Safety
• How does this proposal address the specific safety and
personal security needs of groups within the community,
including women, people with disabilities, seniors, minorities,
religious groups, children, immigrants, workers and others?
For some, STR use creates a sense of lack of safety due to the transient nature
of who may be staying in the house next door to them.
4. Culture
• Is this proposal culturally appropriate and how does it affirm
or deny the cultures of diverse communities?
• How does this proposal create opportunities for artistic and
cultural expression?
5. Addressing the Needs of Neighborhoods
• How does this proposal impact specific Fort Collins
neighborhoods?
• How are community members, stakeholders and interested
parties provided with opportunities for meaningful participation
in the decision making process of this proposal?
• How does this proposal enhance neighborhoods and
stakeholders’ sense of commitment and stewardship to our
community?
Many see the transient nature of STRs creating less of a sense of community
since they don’t know their neighbors.
Some see STR use as being commercial enterprises and thus degrading the
sense of community within the neighborhood.
Extra income from short-term rentals can keep existing community members in
their homes and enhance neighborhood stability.
6. Building Capacity to Advance Social Equity
• What plans have been made to communicate about and
share the activities and impacts of this proposal within the
City organization and/or the community?
• How does this proposal strengthen collaboration and
cooperation between the City organization and community
members?
Social Equity Summary
There is not enough data at this point to determine if STR helps more people stay in their homes or if it is a detriment to housing and neighborhood stability.
Key issues:
2.5
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
4
Potential mitigation strategies:
Overall, the effect of this proposal on social equity would be:
Please reach a consensus on the rating and enter an “x” in one of the following boxes
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
X
Environmental Health
Described: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, lower carbon emissions that contribute to
climate change, lower fossil fuel use, decreased or no toxic product use. Prevent pollution, reduce use, promote reuse, and recycle natural
resources.
Goal/Outcome: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment to ensure long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions necessary for
support of future generations of all species. Avoid or eliminate adverse environmental impacts of all activities, continually review all activities to identify
and implement strategies to prevent pollution; reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency; conserve water; reduce consumption and
waste of natural resources; reuse, recycle and purchase recycled content products; reduce reliance on non-renewable resources.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for
any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent
to a proposal - please include them in the analysis.
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action
plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level
of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Environmental Impact
• Does this proposal affect ecosystem functions or
processes related to land, water, air, or plant or
animal communities?
• Will this proposal generate data or knowledge related to the
use of resources?
• Will this proposal promote or support education in
prevention of pollution, and effective practices for
Analysis/Discussion
STRs typically don’t clean sheets/rooms daily and so have a smaller
environmental impact than a traditional hotel.
People can choose a STR within walking or biking distance to their destinations
which could eliminate the need to drive.
2.5
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
5
reducing, reusing, and recycling of natural resources?
• Does this proposal require or promote the continuous
improvement of the environmental performance of the City
organization or community?
• Will this proposal affect the visual/landscape or aesthetic
elements of the community?
Since STR websites rely on customer reviews, most maintain their properties at
good to high standards.
2. Climate Change
• Does this proposal directly generate or require the
generation of greenhouse gases (such as through
• electricity How does consumption this proposal or align transportation)with the carbon ? reduction goals for
• Will 2020 this goal proposal, adopted or by ongoing the City operations Council? result in an
• increase How does or this decrease proposal in greenhouse affect the community’s gas emissions? efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate adverse climate
change activities?
3. • Protect, Does Preserve, this proposal Restore result in the development or modification
of land resources or ecosystem functions?
• Does this proposal align itself with policies and procedures
related to the preservation or restoration of natural habitat,
greenways, protected wetlands, migratory pathways, or the
urban growth boundary
• How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or restore
important ecological functions or processes?
4. Pollution Prevention
• Does this proposal generate, or cause to be generated,
waste products that can contaminate the environment?
• Does this proposal require or promote pollution prevention
through choice of materials, chemicals, operational practices
and/or engineering controls?
• Does this proposal require or promote prevention of
pollution from toxic substances or other pollutants
regulated by the state or federal government?
• Will this proposal create significant amounts of waste or
pollution?
2.5
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
6
5. Rethink, • Does Replace, this proposal Reduce, prioritize Reuse, the rethinking Recirculate/of the Recycle materials or
goods needed, reduction of resource or materials use, reuse of
current natural resources or materials or energy products, or
result in byproducts that are recyclable or can be re-circulated?
6. Emphasize Local
• Does this proposal emphasize use of local materials,
vendors, and or services to reduce resources and
environmental impact of producing and transporting
proposed goods and materials?
• Will the proposal cause adverse environmental effects
somewhere other than the place where the action will take
place?
STRs utilizes locally owned homes and furnishings.
Environmental Health Summary
Key issues:
Potential mitigation strategies:
Overall, the effect of this proposal on environmental health would be:
Please reach a consensus on the rating and enter an “x” in one of the following boxes
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
x
Economic Health
Described: Support of healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities; focus on development of a diverse economy,
enhanced sustainable practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, creation or retention of family waged jobs.
2.5
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
7
Goal/Outcome: A stable, diverse and equitable economy; support of business development opportunities.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has
advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or
may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Infrastructure and Government
• How will this proposal benefit the local economy?
• If this proposal is an investment in infrastructure is it designed
and will it be managed to optimize the use of resources
including operating in a fossil fuel constrained society?
• Can the proposal be funded partially or fully by grants, user
fees or charges, staged development, or partnering with
another agency?
• How will the proposal impact business growth or operations
(ability to complete desired project or remain in operation), such
as access to needed permits, infrastructure and capital?
Analysis/Discussion
Brings in tourism dollars.
Operators collect and remit both lodging and sales tax.
2. Employment and Training
• What are the impacts of this proposal on job creation
within Larimer County?
• Are apprenticeships, volunteer or intern opportunities
available?
• How will this proposal enhance the skills of the local workforce?
3. Diversified and Innovative Economy
• How does this proposal support innovative or
entrepreneurial activity?
• Will “clean technology” or “green” jobs be created in this
proposal?
• How will the proposal impact start-up or existing businesses or
development projects?
Cyber economy, growing industry. Providing income to owners.
TO date, support from traditional hotel/motels.
4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses
• What percentage of this proposal budget relies on local services
or products? Identify purchases from Larimer County and the
State of Colorado.
Visitors could get better introduction to local goods and services by staying with
a member of the community.
Some use STRs to get a more local experience while considering local jobs or a
relocation.
2.5
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
8
• Will this proposal enhance the tools available to businesses
to incorporate more sustainable practices in operations and
products?
• Are there opportunities to profile sustainable and socially
responsible leadership of local businesses or educate
businesses on triple bottom line practices?
5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy
Economic Prosperity Summary
Key issues:
Potential mitigation strategies:
Overall, the effect of this proposal on economic prosperity will be:
Please reach a consensus on the rating and enter an “x” in one of the following boxes
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
x
2.5
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
ATTACHMENT 6
2.6
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Work Session Summary, June 9, 2015 (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
2.6
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Work Session Summary, June 9, 2015 (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
1
City Council Work Session
October 27, 2015
Short Term Rental Activity in Fort Collins
(Vacation Rental by Owner/ Airbnb)
ATTACHMENT 7
2.7
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Questions/Direction Sought
1. Does Council want to pursue regulations beyond the collection of
Lodging Tax?
2. Is so, what specific concerns should a regulatory system address?
3. Does Council support addressing the concentration of Short Term
Rental (STR) activity, particularly in residential neighborhoods?
2
2.7
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Background
Short Term Rentals (STR):
§ Less than 30 days.
§ Fort Collins tax code requires paying lodging tax.
Two activity types:
§ Whole house rental with no owner on-site.(VRBO)
§ Room(s) in a house with owner on-site. (Airbnb)
3
2.7
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Background
Actual numbers of STRs are difficult to track.
§ Exact addresses not available on most sites.
§ Properties not listed in any particular order.
§ Overlap between sites.
§ A search for “Fort Collins” yields listings outside city limits including
Loveland, Windsor, and rural areas.
4
2.7
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Background
Total Housing Units Listings on VR Websites % of Units Listed
Breckinridge
7,187 2,911 41%
Estes Park
4,176 301 7%
Boulder
44,370 514 1%
Durango
7,234 73 1%
Portland
200,000 1600 0.8%
Fort Collins
62,832 278 0.44%
Denver
290,496 1000 0.34%
5
*Breckinridge, Estes Park, and Durango cited in CAST report. Denver & Boulder numbers cited in city materials.
Portland taken from 2014 data. Fort Collins numbers not scrubbed for duplicates or confirmed as within city limits
2.7
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Questionnaire Results
6
How long have you operated your
VRBO?
How long have you operated your
Airbnb?
Less
than a
year.
32%
Between
1 and 3
years.
46%
More
than 3
years.
22%
Less
than a
year.
40%
Between
1 and 3
years.
53%
More
than 3
years.
7%
2.7
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Questionnaire Results
7
Do you have concerns with having a
VRBO near you?
Do you have concerns with having an
Airbnb near you?
Yes - very
concerned
21%
Maybe -
somewhat
concerned
17%
No - no
concerns
59%
Undecided
3%
Yes - very
concerned
14%
Maybe -
somewhat
concerned
13%
No - no
concerns
Undecided 72%
1%
2.7
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Questionnaire Results
8
Do you think VRBO/Airbnb activity should be regulated?
Yes
26%
No
44%
Maybe
23%
I don't
know
7%
2.7
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Questionnaire Results
9
Require a permit through the City 154
Limit the number of occupants at any one time 131
Have owners self-certify that they are paying sales tax and that their units meet safety standards
(smoke alarms, egress windows, etc-No onsite inspection.)
103
Limit the number of nights units can be rented 90
Require that all VRBO/Airbnbs are inspected by the City 88
Only allow in certain zones 85
Limit the number City-wide 67
Other 47
Require that VRBO/Airbnbs meet ADA standards 45
Total 206
2.7
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Moving Forward
§ Education, outreach, and enforcement to ensure Lodging Tax remittal
§ Land Use Code definition for Short Term Rental
10
2.7
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Regulatory Options
§ Registration
§ Revocable permit/license
§ Life-Safety checklist/inspection
§ Local Owner/Contact
§ Concentration/Location
§ Parking Requirements
§ Occupancy Requirements
11
2.7
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
Questions/Direction Sought
1. Does Council want to pursue regulations beyond the collection of
Lodging Tax?
2. Is so, what specific concerns should a regulatory system address?
3. Does Council support addressing the concentration of Short Term
Rental (STR) activity, particularly in residential neighborhoods?
12
2.7
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3685 : Short Term Rental Activity)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 27, 2015
Andres Gavaldon, Financial Policy & Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Long Term Financial Planning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of Long Term Financial Planning is to identify issues which will be addressed in the Strategic Plan
process. This project highlights potential challenges over the next 10 years and seeks to aid in decision-making
on possible solution strategies. The analysis brings awareness to alignment considerations between financial
capacity and service level objectives. With an awareness of these issues, decision makers can have a
meaningful discussion with a long-range perspective.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is the information provided sufficient for Council to effectively understand and identify issues that may provide
input into the Strategic Plan?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The project was originally brought to Council Finance Committee and Futures Committee in fall of 2014 to confirm
scope and deliverables. The original analysis has been updated to coincide with the 2017-2018 Strategic Plan
cycle.
The project scope included 28 funds (not including Utilities), and discretely modeled 8 primary funds for additional
review. The model utilizes 14 years of historical transactions, 30 years of Sales and Use Tax revenue, service
area capital estimates and debt service projections. 879 income statement accounts are summarized into 71
account types and forecasted individually. Forecasting methodologies included: historical trends, correlation
analysis, and custom drivers based on service area analyst input.
The model analysis results show that if KFCG is not renewed, a loss of $32M in revenue is anticipated and would
require significant reduction and reprioritization of expenditures. If KFCG is renewed, all funds are generally
healthy and gaps between revenue and expenditures are manageable with some issues in Transit and
Transportation. The resulting takeaway's also highlight that increased potential future capital needs would require
additional revenue and/or decreased spending, and show significant impact to the financials from as little as 2.5%
change in forecast assumptions.
Future use of the analysis will incorporate the results within the 2017-2018 Strategic Plan cycle. The model can
also be used to support long-term strategic discussions around specific project issues such as growth
management area maximization.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Finance Committee minutes, May 19, 2014 (PDF)
2. Council Finance Committee minutes, October 20, 2014 (PDF)
3. Council Futures Committee minutes, November 24, 2014 (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 81
Excerpt from Council Finance Committee minutes
May 19, 2014
Long Term Financial Planning Work Scope
Andres Gavaldon presented the scope for Long Term Financial Planning (LTFP) that Council requested. The
City has never developed such a Plan, so Staff researched potential methodologies and is now proposing a
process for this new project built on GFOA recommendations. The proposed process improves on the City’s
current “5-Line” analysis used in the budget process and takes an approach which can be completed within
the current fiscal year with existing resources.
Initially, Staff envisioned a robust plan with a 30 year forecast; however, because the City is a multi-faceted
organization, this approach is very complex and would require extra time and resources. Staff consulted
Bob Eichem, President of GFOA and CFO for the City of Boulder. Bob directed Staff to a more high-level
approach. This model is directional rather than a forecast, meaning that it will help reveal possible funding
gaps in the future and how to avoid them rather than projecting a number for 2030.
In 2005, the City implemented a 5-line review which addressed key funds for the BFO Process. This review
looks 4-5 years out; whereas, the Long Term Financial Planning will look 20-30 years out. The new plan
would leverage the 5-line Review, adding some more drivers and lengthening the timeline. It would also
apply different growth rates by expense line items.
Ross asked for more clarity on how this tool would be used. Andres gave the example of the Plan examining
the potential of KFCG ending, looking at the impact of such an event and possible directions Staff could take.
Andres explained that if Council approves the “5-line” method, Staff should be able to bring this item back
to CFC in December 2014 or January 2015. Karen said that Council has been supportive of GFOA processes
and will likely continue to follow their direction.
Karen asked what boards and commissions will be involved in creating and approving this plan. Darin said
that he didn’t see this as Board and Commission intensive, but rather an administrative process. Once the
plan begins to affect policy, then it will be brought to Boards and Commissions. Karen asked if there was a
way to clarify in the name of the project that it is more administrative; “Long Range Financial Plan” makes it
sound like an external issue. Andres said that the name is actually “Long Term Financial Planning” and we
could clarify by adding Process to the end of the name.
Council Finance supports the 5-Line approach to Long Term Financial Planning.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, May 19, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Excerpt from Council Finance Committee minutes
October 20, 2014
Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP)
Mike explained that the purpose of presenting the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is to get Council
Finance’s response on its structure and assumptions before a draft is brought to Council in February
2015. Andres Gavaldon noted that the purpose of the LTFP is to provide a directional tool to highlight
potential issues. It will provide a base case 10 year view of revenue and expenditures based on key
assumptions and provide directional understanding of the gaps between various revenue and
expenditure assumptions. The LTFP will also provide the ability to evaluate the impact of various
scenarios from the base case.
Bob noted that this tool could be helpful in evaluating the impact of financing things such as
sustainability initiatives. Mike noted that this tool could be helpful in running such scenarios as the
impact of the City deciding to take on maximum debt capacity.
Andres reviewed the scope of the LTFP, noting that nine funds have been discretely modeled and
included in the total City view. The Mayor asked why KFCG is broken out as a fund, but the other ¼ cent
taxes are not. John Voss explained that all sales taxes are included in the model; however the dedicated
taxes, such as the ¼ cent street maintenance tax, are not broken out of the funds they are dedicated to.
Mike Beckstead said that Staff would consider a way to make this clearer; perhaps a footnote could be
added to the information on funds.
Ross Cunniff suggested adding a column to the Correlation Matrix that spoke to the unpredictability
/ predictability of each forecast.
Andres noted that Staff aims for a February 2015 completion target date for council work session. The
results will be incorporated into the Strategic Planning Cycle. Throughout 2015, there will likely be a lot
of polishing and adjusting as Staff works with Council to cement the structure of this new tool. Once
finalized, the LTFP will be updated every two years.
Council Finance sees the LTFP as a useful tool and suggested that the LTFP be an ongoing process in
2015.
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, October 20, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
City Manager’s Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
Minutes
City of Fort Collins
Futures Committee Meeting
Regular Meeting
CIC Room, City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave
November 24, 2014
3:00–5:00pm
Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent:
Gerry Horak Wade Troxell, Chair
Bruce Hendee
Darin Atteberry
Gino Campana
City Staff:
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Andrés Gavaldón, Strategic Finance Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Sam Houghteling, Graduate Management Assistant
Travis Machalek, Graduate Management Assistant
Invited Guests: none
Community Members:
Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Gerry Horak called meeting to order at 3:15pm
Member Comments: none.
Approval of October Minutes:
Not discussed.
Think Tank Item 20: Long Term Financial Plan Status Review—Mike Beckstead and
Andrés Gavaldón
Andrés gave a presentation on the ten year forecast. The data used to drive the model includes 13
years of account history and 30 years of sales and use tax revenue. Staff is creating unique data
sets to drive the model including capital improvement plans, debt service projections and an FTE
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Council Futures Committee minutes, November 24, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
headcount database. Mike added that the capital improvement plan has not
existed. Once it is complete and vetted by Council, it will be helpful. Staff can show how much
has been spent historically on capital and how much debt could be held for capital
improvements. The goal is to complete that plan by 2015 and update the forecast at that time.
The result is a plan to incorporate the long term financial plan into the City’s strategic plan
process. 533 active accounts are being summarized into 32 revenue line items. Seven have been
identified as driving revenue. There are 346 active accounts on expense side, with 10 drivers.
Andres showed a sample chart that illustrates what kind of information will come from the long
term financial plan. Some scenarios they are thinking of modelling include mimicking recession
economics, savings in a favorable economy, implementation of capital projects, maxing out the
debt policy without affecting credit rating, etc. They will also model what could happen if certain
revenue sources are not renewed. Expense uncertainties that can be modelled include healthcare,
headcount assumptions, climate action planning, east Mulberry annexation, etc. Mike added that
staff met with the CFO of Boulder, and his recommendation was to go macro on revenue and
expenses to find the gap. Andres’ modelling is more sophisticated than others in the industry.
Staff is meeting with service areas to finalize the capital improvement plan and verify expense
drivers. The projection is to review the data over the next month, do programming in January,
and present to Council in February.
Comments/Q & A:
x What software is being used to do the modelling?
x It is Excel based, but was developed by a programmer for this type of modelling.
x Part of the challenge is getting the systems used in various departments to speak to each
other to share information. JDE Edwards is our universal financial system.
x What percentage of Andres’ time is used on this?
x Fifty percent or more.
x Can the expense of creating this model be calculated?
x It is something we have to have, with the CIP, and strategic risk assessment, and then we
can do the strategic planning necessary. To truly understand the issues we are facing, we
need this data.
x This is a foundational tool that is necessary. The opportunity cost could be significant,
but we have matured to a level where this is critical.
x Once we get the database built and the models working, it will be a reduced effort to keep
it up to date.
x This model was bought by the City five years ago and enhancements were made to get
this project going.
x How do you fund these types of things in your department?
x We have discretionary funds. There was a position open for a few months that left
available funds. This was under $4000.
x Is this part of your department plan? People should know about this. It’s odd that this
didn’t exist already, and that other communities don’t have it either.
x Regarding long range planning, ten to twelve years ago, there was a ten-year shadow
budget so that the City Manager and Council could make projections, but that went away
with the introduction of the BFO process. If you talk to Utilities about their long range
planning, it is far from a wish list. This group would like more rigor, process, and
2
3.3
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Council Futures Committee minutes, November 24, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
alignment around these strategic plans. We should be leveraging
opportunities between departments, such as Streets and Utilities.
x I see rigor in the CIP as similar to BFO. There are a lot of things we’d like to do, but
there is a process to prioritize and select. There is a big gap between what we have spent
historically and what we’d like to do. The list must be thorough and vetted. If there is a
gap between what should be done and the funding available, we need to work on that.
x The work done around build out shows projections for growth, which could be used in
this model.
x We are using that kind of data for revenue projections.
x Andrés has done correlation a between CPI and population growth, which becomes the
basis for revenue.
x If we have growth projections that are at a certain point, if the growth does not happen in
the northeast quadrant, and happens instead along the Mason Street corridor, what kinds
of changes does that make to the financial planning? These need to be integrated to make
better long range decisions.
x That is the scary part about moving into areas like social sustainability and affordable
housing. Every two years we have a free for all for general funds. The ten year capital
improvement plan isn’t a plan so much as a list. What kinds of businesses should we be
involved in?
x Regarding overall management, does the City want to grow or have in-migration? Do we
encourage satellite cities and invest in transportation? These are the types of planning
conversations that need to happen.
x These models will help show the effects of various choices, such as growing into the
northeast quadrant or not.
x At the February 10 Council work session staff will present a couple of scenarios, but
would like direction from Council on other scenarios to play with.
x How does this tie into other plans? We have a bike plan, a transportation plan, etc. They
all have plans for what is going to happen, maybe, but we clearly don’t have the money
to do all these things.
x We can get into affordable housing at whatever level Council decides, but that is an
opportunity cost that prevents another project from happening. Funds are limited. These
are the hard conversations we need to have.
x This tool resources how we prioritize.
x How you leverage other resources is a wild card: private development, grants, etc.
x Think how much time and effort we have put into talking about a couple of FTEs, when
we could have been discussing what direction the community can take over the next five
to ten years. The assumption is we can do everything all the time.
x That is one reason we have levels for various funds such as Natural areas, KFCG, etc.
Staff will model discrete primary funds.
x Two things people said were on their minds in the citizen survey were transportation and
housing affordability. How did we do on those two things now that we have a budget?
What kind of impact did that survey have?
x It would be interesting to do that survey again.
x The strategic plan ought to identify the major changes we’d like to see. That should drive
our BFO offers, and we should be able to show progress in those areas. The more
3
3.3
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Council Futures Committee minutes, November 24, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
intentional Council can be at the beginning, it drives department
plans and offers. We should get good at honing in on Council, with input, to make
priorities for two years.
x Be careful how you craft the survey. There is not a lot we can do about housing
affordability. Two studies showed this. How are we going to measure our offers and
outcomes against that? We need to be careful what is on that list. What can we really
influence directly for housing affordability? It’s very small, so we shouldn’t tailor our
budget around that.
x We should put our money into things we are in charge of and do well. We can maximize
the transit routes for housing. Students are picking housing based on bus stops. That is
what we can do.
x We came out with 72 objectives, but if in the strategic plan we came up with 3 or 4 main
objectives where we could make real change, that would be powerful.
x Everything the City does is generally good, but we have not done enough thinking on
what we can really do well, instead of trying to do everything people ask us to do. Social
Sustainability is one such area. I want a housing capital fund; sell the land we have, and
have that available for people with meaningful projects that address housing, especially
for the lower end. It can be priming the pump. I’d rather have the money there than have
to backfill. Then we don’t even deal with it.
x These tools help us do that. The real question is if we are willing to prioritize. Because it
means we chose something not to do.
x Council says housing is important and CDBG has done a great job.
x We are getting more information that directly relates to Council making informed
decisions to prioritize.
x Who in the community will have access to this? How will the results or tool be made
publically available?
x That is something we will work through by February.
x It is good to get the message out to the public that we are working on this.
x We are anticipating taking the long term financial plan to the Chamber after Council.
x We are trying to create too many products with not enough revenue coming in, which is
not a successful business model.
x Vancouver has completed a 100 year plan. Everything you’ve been talking about with
modelling is about where we want to be and who we want to be. We have discussed top
population at 250,000 people. Should we start there and see what it takes to achieve that?
x If at 2025 we are at 250,000 people and we want to preserve the lifestyle we have, and
one attribute is that you can live, work and play in Fort Collins, then we are going to need
X number of primary jobs. You can start thinking along those lines. Then we can stop
debating primary jobs, and make a plan. The plan can be dynamic.
x If you backward plan, it can inform the models staff does.
x We have a vision and policies, but these have a lot of grey area. You can refine that
vision based on population numbers.
x Aren’t there assumptions for what certain areas will look like if 250,000 is the right
number?
x Cameron will come to talk about that next month. But if you go vertical, that changes
everything.
4
3.3
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Council Futures Committee minutes, November 24, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
x If the 250,000 is based on current zoning for density and height, is
it still correct?
x That number is based on student population growth projections, build out of Mason
corridor, maximum density in areas that haven’t been developed based on current zoning,
etc.
DO 20: Next Steps
x Not discussed.
Future Meeting Topics Discussion
x December 8—Land Use Planning & Build Out Revisited
x January 12—Social Sustainability
x February 9—Community Dashboard
Meeting adjourned at 4:13pm.
5
3.3
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Council Futures Committee minutes, November 24, 2014 (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
1
Long Term Financial Planning
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Goal
Identify Long-Term Financial Issues to be
Addressed in Strategic Plan
2
3.4
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
What is Long Term Financial Planning?
Objective:
• Highlight potential challenges and aid in philosophical decision-making on strategies that
span the long term (>10 years)
What it is:
• Methodology to identify macro issues that need to be addressed in the strategic plan
• The process of aligning financial capacity with long-term service level objectives
• Stimulate discussion and engenders a long-range perspective for decision makers
• Estimate of future forecast with goal of 50% probability of being too high or too low
What it is not:
• Detailed 10 year budget
• Project Specific Initiatives Analysis
• Tactical Operation Next Steps
3
3.4
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Total of 28 funds included in model
Transactions Included:
Ø Benefits Fund
Ø Self Insurance Fund
Ø Equipment Fund
Ø Data & Communications Fund
Primary Funds Discretely Modeled
Ø General Fund
Ø KFCG
Ø Transit
Ø Transportation
Ø Natural Areas
Ø Cultural Services
Ø Recreation
Ø Golf
Scope Review
4
Total City View “All Fund Groups” Includes: Primary Funds, Secondary
Funds and Internal Fund Charges (excludes Utilities)
Secondary Funds Examples
Ø URA
Ø Neighborhood Parkland Fund
Ø Street Oversizing
Ø Capital Projects
3.4
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Process
Model Data:
Ø 14 years of history at the individual account level
Ø 30 years of Sales and Use tax revenue
Ø Service Area Capital Estimates
Ø Debt Service Projections
Revenue Inputs:
Ø 533 revenue accounts are summarized into 32 revenue line items that are each forecasted
individually
Ø Revenue line items forecasted using variables that had highest correlation in the past,
combined with analyst unique knowledge
Expense Inputs:
Ø 346 expense accounts are summarized into 39 expense line items that are each forecasted
individually
Ø Service Area liaisons and budget office fund owners reviewed and gave direction on future
expenditures
5
3.4
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Methodology for Forecast
• Unique drivers at the organizational line item level
• Historical Trend Perspective
• Customization based on service area analyst input
• Correlation analysis
• Rational assumption or generic default growth rate
6
3.4
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Revenue Assumptions
Primary Drivers (revenue > $10M excluding transfers):
Ø Sales and Use Tax - tax revenue driven taxable sales (Sales portion) and by 15
year averages for Use Tax revenue at 3.6%
Ø Property Tax - tied to CPI, growth currently calculated at 2.8%
Ø Capital Grants – project specific and difficult to forecast, tied to CPI at 2.8%
Ø Shared Revenues – County and State Distributions CAGR for majority of 2000s
was 1.56%
Ø Cultural, Park, Recreation and Natural Areas Fees – 14 year historical rate of
3.26%
7
3.4
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Expenditure Assumptions
Primary Drivers (expense > $10M excluding transfers):
Ø Salaries and Wages - Highly correlates to taxable sales; growth of 3.2%
Ø Benefits – 8.5% growth rate is combination of population, wages, and health costs
Ø Professional and Technical – Highly correlates to population; growth of 2.3%
Ø Repair and Maintenance Services – 4.0% average for 2000s for most of accounts
Ø Infrastructure - 4.2% growth rate proxy for average of 2000s
8
3.4
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
$138M
$207M
$161M
$242M
$301M
$359M
$225M
$269M
$369M
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -ALL FUNDGROUPS - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
All Funds
9
• Healthy financials through 2020 at existing service levels
• $32M 2021 funding eliminated without KFCG
3.4
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
General Fund
10
Ø Bullet 1
Ø Bullet 2
Ø Bullet 3
$30M $74M
$47M
$81M
$134M
$182M
$77M
$121M
$189M
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES - 00100 - GENERAL FUND - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
• 2025 $7M deficit is 3.7% of total
• Manageable deficit amounts over next 10 years based on
current service level being funded by General Fund
• 2025 $7M deficit is 3.7% of total
3.4
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
KFCG Fund
11
$0M $15M
$0M
$0M
$26M
$0M
$0M
$24M
$0M
-$5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -00254 - KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
• $32M KFCG Tax expires at the end of year 2020
• Service levels impacted significantly unless renewed
3.4
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Recreation Fund
12
$1M $3M $4M
$6M $7M
$9M
$7M $6M
$9M
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -00274 - RECREATION FUND - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
• Projected surplus and deficit amounts are controllable
• Supplemental funding in KFCG Fund began in 2011 (5.5%)
3.4
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
$2M
$1M
-$34M
$6M
$12M
$16M
$7M
$14M
$22M
-$40
-$30
-$20
-$10
$0
$10
$20
$30
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -00290 - TRANSIT SERVICES FUND - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
Transit Fund
13
• Personnel is large part of total cost and growing at faster rate than revenue
• Forecast does not include: weekend service, increased hours, shorter headways
3.4
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
$6M $19M
$2M
$19M
$30M $35M
$17M
$26M
$39M
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -00292 - TRANSPORTATION FUND - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
Transportation Fund
14
• 2014 revenue increase due to Sales and Use Tax, and capital leasing
• Personnel is large part of total cost and growing at faster rate than revenue
3.4
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Scenarios
15
• KFCG Renewed
• Capital Spending increases by $25M/year
• 2.5% unfavorable revenue growth
• 2.5% unfavorable revenue growth & 2.5% higher
expenses
3.4
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
$138M
$207M
$177M
$242M
$301M
$396M
$225M
$269M
$407M
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -ALL FUNDGROUPS - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
KFCG Renewed
16
• Renewal of KFCG maintains healthy revenue & expense relationship
• Deficit in later years is at a manageable level
3.4
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Capital Spending Scenario
17
$138M $207M
-$73M
$242M
$301M
$396M
$225M
$269M
$432M
-$100
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -ALL FUNDGROUPS - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
• Capital Scenario includes $25M/year extra capital spending
on potential projects currently under consideration
3.4
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
2.5% Unfavorable Revenue Scenario
18
$138M $207M
$82M
$242M
$301M
$386M
$225M
$269M
$407M
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -ALL FUNDGROUPS - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
• Fund balance erodes $80M by 2025
3.4
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Decline Revenue, Increase Expense Scenario
19
$138M $207M -$14M
$242M
$301M
$386M
$225M
$269M
$417M
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ MILLIONS
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -ALL FUNDGROUPS - WITH TRANSFERS
Year End Balance Revenue Scenario Revenue Expenditures Scenario Expenditures
• 2.5% unfavorable change in forecast results
in use of all fund balance by 2025
3.4
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Takeaways
20
• Elimination of KFCG Would Require Significant Reductions in Spending
• Funds Generally Healthy Given Assumptions
• Except Transportation & Transit – Expenses Growing Faster then Revenue
• Gaps are Manageable - Financials Allow Flexibility to Adjust to Future
Events
• 2.5% Change in Revenue or Expense can Cause Dramatic Shift in Outlook
• Increased Capital Needs will Require Additional Revenue or Reduction in
Current Spend Levels
3.4
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Future Uses
• Long Term Financial Plan will be Updated Every Two Years as Part of the
Strategic Plan Process
• Support Long-Term Strategic Discussions with Quantitative Projections
• Growth management area maximization
• Specific project support and analysis
21
3.4
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
Next Steps
• Identify Strategic Objectives to be Addressed in Strategic Plan
• Improve Model Programming Utilizing Team Approach
• Update Model On a Consistent Basis
22
3.4
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3687 : Long Term Financial Planning)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 27, 2015
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for City Council to review the proposed public private partnership with the Fort Collins
Hotel developer to construct a 323 stall parking garage structure. The structure will contain parking for the hotel
and approximately 216 public parking spaces to meet future parking demands in the Old Town Historic District
and River District.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have additional questions of staff?
2. Is Council supportive of bringing this proposal for Council consideration on November 17, 2015?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project Description
The public-private partnership proposes to construct a 3-level mixed-use parking garage with approximately 322
parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets - 363
Jefferson Street. The Project will be a public-private partnership between the City of Fort Collin and the
developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality-collectively the
“Developer”). The garage entry will be on Chestnut Street and the retail spaces will face onto Old Firehouse Alley
(Attachment 1). The Project will contain all required vehicle and bicycle parking for the hotel.
Parking
The Project is designed as a three bay garage with a central ramp for moving between floors (Attachment 2).
The central ramp allows for the exterior of the structure on all four faces to have horizontal floors. This
construction allows for an efficient use of the available footprint and a structure that addresses the streets and
alley with a consistent façade free of the impacts from the required ramps. The structure will be constructed
above ground with the exception of a short downward ramp on the first floor. The floor to ceiling height on the
ground floor will be higher to accommodate retail space facing the alley. The result is approximately 323 parking
spaces over three levels, see Table 1.
Table 1
Parking Count By Floor and Type
Tier Standard Van Accessible Accessible Total
Ground 78 3 3 84
Second 117 0 3 120
4
Packet Pg. 111
October 27, 2015 Page 2
Tier Standard Van Accessible Accessible Total
Third 117 0 2 119
Total 312 3 8 323
Of the parking, 107 of spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins Hotel (approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board on August 10, 2015) and the remaining 216 spaces will be public parking managed by the City. The hotel’s
parking will include all of the ground floor with the balance of spaces located on the second floor. The remaining
spaces on the second and third level will be available for public parking. The ground floor will have limited access
for hotel patrons and staff only and will be used for hotel valet and general parking. The remaining hotel spaces
will be designated as “Reserved for Hotel Use” using signs on the second floor, see Table 2. The ultimate count
may vary some as the van accessible and accessible spaces are divided by user.
Table 2
Parking Count By Floor and Use
Tier Hotel Public Total
Ground 84 0 86
Second 23 97 120
Third 0 119 119
Total 107 216 323
Retail
The Project includes 3,200 square feet of retail facing Old Fire House Alley that will contain artisan and hotel
supporting retailers (labeled as Retail/Office Flex Space on Attachment 2). This retail is located immediately
across the alley from the Fort Collins Hotel bar and lobby space and will create an active and vibrant alley. In
addition, the project includes the façade improvements for a similar amount of retail along the Jefferson Street
structure face (labeled as Potential Retail/Office Flex Space on Attachment 2). This retail will not be constructed
during the initial Project. This Jefferson Street facing retail will be reserved for future construction when nearby
development has created a more active pedestrian atmosphere along Jefferson Street. The City will be able to
drive the timing of this construction through an option specified in the purchase and sale agreement (see the
Partnership Section for additional details).
Design Considerations
The proposed design is a result of a thoughtful context-sensitive approach by the Developer. (Attachment 3)
Although the project is outside of the Old Town Historic District, the design team utilized the Old Town Historic
District Design Standards to inform the building and site design. In addition, the design team referred to the River
District Design Guidelines for Structured Parking 6.25 thru 6.27 for guidance on design. The result is a structure
that bridges the industrial character of the River District to the historic character of the Old Town Historic District.
The project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Landmark Preservation Commission on
September 28, 2015 and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 8, 2015. (Attachments 4, 5
and 7)
Public Benefit
Fort Collins provides a high quality of place contributed to by the lively historic downtown and the City’s
impressive parks, trails and open space networks. These community assets make Fort Collins an attractive place
for both a well-educated workforce and diverse industries. The development of a downtown hotel and the
proposed parking structure represent an opportunity to strengthen the existing high quality of place. The Project
meets numerous City Plan policy objectives and occurs in the City’s core. Thus, the Project represents an
opportunity to achieve not only economic outcomes, but also an opportunity to strengthen the overall community.
4
Packet Pg. 112
October 27, 2015 Page 3
City Plan Objectives
The Project as proposed meets a variety of City Plan objectives, including but not limited to:
Economic Health
EH 1.3 - Prioritize Essential Infrastructure/Capital Facilities: Additional parking has been identified
through several public outreach efforts including the recent update to the Downtown Plan as a key need.
As such, partnering to deliver 216 public parking spaces meets this objective.
EH 4.1 -Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas: The Old Town Historic District and the River District
are both Targeted Redevelopment Areas. Addressing the parking need in these areas will help to
facilitate additional redevelopment and meet a current community need for parking.
EH 4.2 - Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment: One barrier to redevelopment
especially in and near the historic core is the lack of parking to meet user demand. This Project provides
216 additional spaces in an area identified as part of the Parking Plan as needing additional parking.
Community and Neighborhood Livability
Policy LIV 3.1 - Commit to Providing Capital Facilities: This objective calls for prioritizing existing
deficiencies. As parking remains a deficiency, according to the Parking Plan and public outreach, this
project addresses a deficiency in the Old Town area.
Policy LIV 5.1 - Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill: The Old Town Historic District and the
River District are both Targeted Redevelopment Areas, addressing the parking need in these areas will
help to facilitate additional redevelopment and meet a current community need for parking.
Policy LIV 30.4 - Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking: The Project addresses this objective by providing
a context sensitive design to the structure skin that reinforces the historic character of nearby buildings
and transitions from the Old Town Historic District to the River District.
Policy LIV 30.5 - Parking Structures: The Project design addresses this objective by providing for retail
development along two faces of the structure. In addition, the design utilizes screening to reinforce the
historic form of nearby buildings. Finally, the design integrates green walls to provide visual relief and
introduce nature in the Project in a creative way.
Policy LIV 32.5- Maintain Visual Character: The context sensitive design was very deliberate and
intentional in its efforts to reinforce the historic building pattern through screening and material choice.
Policy LIV 32.6 - Encourage Human-Scale Architectural Elements: The design uses retail and green
screening to break-up otherwise lengthy facades to create more pedestrian scale.
High Performing Government
Policy HI 4.6 - Work with Private Partners: Working with private partners to develop parking was
identified as a key strategy in the Parking Plan as well as fulfills this objective of City Plan.
City Strategic Plan
The Project as proposed meets a variety of City Strategic Plan objectives, including but not limited to:
1.10 - Address neighborhood parking issues: The Project address the identified parking need in the
Old Town Historic District and River District.
3.7 - Support sustainable infill and redevelopment to meet climate action strategies: The Project
supports infill and redevelopment, which by virtue of revitalizing under-utilized land is itself a sustainable
effort.
3.10 - Address Downtown parking issues identified in the adopted Parking Plan: The Project directly
responds to the adopted Parking Plan by providing 216 public parking spaces in a location identified as a
target within that plan.
4
Packet Pg. 113
October 27, 2015 Page 4
Downtown Strategic Plan (2004)
The Project as proposed meets a variety of Downtown Strategic Plan (2004) objectives, including but not limited
to:
Principle 1: Protect and manage the Downtown retail/entertainment Core
1.1.1 - Encourage long-term parkers, customers, and employees to better utilize existing
Downtown parking structures: This Project increases the available supply of downtown parking making
access for long-term parking in structures easier.
1.3.1 - Create a Comprehensive parking management plan for the Downtown core: This Project is a
direct reaction to the adopted Parking Plan and the action items contained within that plan.
Principle 2: Utilize the Energy from the Core to Leverage and Attract New Development
2.3.1 - Develop, manage and operate parking as essential civic infrastructure, and over time create
a “Park Once” environment to sustain low overall parking ratios: This Project helps to achieve this
objective by increasing the supply of long-term parking within the Old Town Historic District and Riverside
District, which will help to facilitate a “Park Once” environment.
Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods
The Project as proposed meets a variety of Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods (the
“Parking Plan”) objectives, including but not limited to:
Principle 6: New Parking Infrastructure
Policy 6.3 - Public-Private Partnerships for the Development of New Parking: This objective
encourages the use of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to increase the supply of public parking
throughout the Downtown. This Project leverages a PPP to add 216 parking spaces to the supply of off-
street long-term parking in the Downtown area directly responding to this policy.
Policy 6.6 - Downtown River District Parking Needs: This Project’s proximity to the River District
allows for the facility to provide some relief to the parking supply issue in that district.
Principle 7: Multimodal Access and Urban Design
Policy 7.3 - Structured Parking: This objective encourages the conversion of surface parking into
structure parking. The original Project plan called for a surface parking lot to meet the Fort Collins Hotel’s
parking need. The use of a PPP encouraged the conversion of that plan from a surface parking lot into a
structured parking facility.
Downtown Public Parking Demand
The Parking Plan includes a Parking Demand Model that provides insights into future parking needs based on
existing and future land uses. This model combined with additional staff analysis generated an estimated of the
overall demand for additional public parking in the Downtown area. Table 3 (excerpted from the Parking Plan)
summarizes the estimate of future public parking demand over a 10-year period.
4
Packet Pg. 114
October 27, 2015 Page 5
Table 3
Future Public Parking Demand: 10 Year Horizon
The analysis indicates a demand for approximately 910 spaces over the 10-year horizon with an additional 600
spaces needed to support a proposed 1,500 seat performance hall. Therefore, the Project as proposed meets 24
percent of the projected need for all future public parking demand and 43 percent of the demand from background
growth in demand as projected by the Parking Demand Model. The Project as proposed also locates the 216
additional public parking spaces in one of the seven identified target areas within the Parking Plan, as shown in
Attachment 6 (excerpted from the Parking Plan). Therefore, the Project aligns with the needs and locations
identified within the Parking Plan for additional public parking.
Partnership Structure
As recommended in the Parking Plan, this Project uses a PPP to deliver additional public parking in the
Downtown area. In the proposed partnership, the Developer of the Fort Collins Hotel will construct the Project and
when completed the Developer will sell the City 216 parking stalls as condominium space. The process is very
similar to the approach used to construct the new Foothills Activity Center and the Council Tree Public Library. In
addition, this approach allows for the City to utilize tax-exempt financing.
Purchase and Sale Agreement
City Council will be asked to consider a resolution to authorize the City Manage to execute a purchase and sale
agreement for the condo(s) associated with the 216 public parking spaces at its November 17, 2015 City Council
meeting. The main points of that agreement are summarized below:
4
Packet Pg. 115
October 27, 2015 Page 6
The City must give its approval of the final plans and specifications for construction of the parking
structure and the Developer’s itemized cost estimate before construction can commence;
The Developer agrees to deed at least 216 parking spaces within the parking structure to the City
included the right to use the land underlying the Parking Structure, and the air rights over the building;
The Developer and the City, at closing, will execute an option agreement that will allow the City, at its
discretion, to acquire from the Developer an area of parking on the first floor of the Parking Structure as a
separate unit for the construction of retail and in exchange the City would transfer to the Developer a
similar number of parking spaces in the public parking area;
Purchase price will be the land cost of ($2,018,835) plus a proportional share of the agreed upon costs for
construction but not to exceed a total amount of $7,600,000
Ongoing Operations and Maintenance
A condominium association or similar structure will oversee the on-going operations and maintenance of the
structure. The current plan calls for City’s Parking Services Department to provide ongoing operations and
maintenance of the entire structure with each individual owner (the City and Developer) responsible for the actual
parking operations within their individual portion of the project. The Association Board will be responsible for
maintaining the structure to a predefined and agreed upon standard. Day-to-day decisions will be governed by a
simple majority with major capital expenditures, changes to the Association Bylaws and Covenants, and approval
of use within the Retail/Office Flex space being subject to super majority decisions. The City will have proportional
representation on the board, which will result in the City having approximately two-thirds control of the
Association.
Timeline
The Project is anticipated to be constructed in the following timeline:
November 17, 2015 - City Council considers Purchase and Sale Agreement
1st Quarter 2016 - Hotel construction begins using the parking structure site for staging of equipment
2nd Quarter 2016 - Parking Structure construction begins
2016 - Evaluate, identify, and close financing for acquisition
2016 - Finalize an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Downtown Development Authority
1st Quarter 2017 - City purchases the 216 public parking spaces
Financial Investment Overview
City staff has been evaluating the use of either a lease-purchase or certificate of participation financing structure
to fund the acquisition cost of the 216 public parking spaces.
Project Costs
The current estimated Project cost is approximately $11.6 million or $36,000 per stall. This Project cost includes
the cost to prepare the site, construct 323 parking spaces, and construction 3,200 square feet of retail core and
shell, as shown in Table 4. The parking costs account for 85 percent of the total with retail and site each
accounting for between 7 and 8 percent individually.
4
Packet Pg. 116
October 27, 2015 Page 7
Table 4
Estimated Project Costs by Use
Cost Item Stalls Parking Retail Site Total
Land $ 1,722,819 $ 153,442 $ 142,573 $ 2,018,835
Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 533,358 $ 47,503 $ 44,139 $ 625,000
Soft Costs $ 1,149,920 $ 102,417 $ 95,163 $ 1,347,500
Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 42,669 $ 3,800 $ 3,531 $ 50,000
Construction Costs $ 6,425,755 $ 572,307 $ 531,769 $ 7,529,831
TOTAL $ 9,874,521 $ 879,470 $ 817,175 $ 11,571,166
$ / Stall 323 $ 30,571 n/a $ 2,530 $ 35,824
$ / Gross Square Feet $ 82.75 $ 274.83 $ 15.27 $ 93.94
Gross Square Feet 119,328 3,200 53,517 123,177
The total Project cost is split amongst the various owners in the following manner (a) the retail costs are 100
percent apportioned to the Developer, and (b) the remaining parking and site costs are split amongst the
Developer and the City based on a pro-rata share. The result is an estimated City cost of approximately $7.1
million or approximately $33,000 per stall, as shown in Table 5. This equates to 62 percent of the costs or just
under two-thirds.
Table 5
Estimated Project Costs by Owner
Cost Item Developer Retail City Total
Land $ 617,947 $ 153,442 $ 1,247,445 $ 2,018,835
Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 191,307 $ 47,503 $ 386,190 $ 625,000
Soft Costs $ 412,458 $ 102,417 $ 832,625 $ 1,347,500
Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 15,305 $ 3,800 $ 30,895 $ 50,000
Construction Costs $ 2,304,814 $ 572,307 $ 4,652,710 $ 7,529,831
TOTAL $ 3,541,831 $ 879,470 $ 7,149,865 $ 11,571,166
$ / Stall $ 33,101 n/a $ 33,101 $ 35,824
Stalls 107 n/a 216 323
Financing Structure & Assumptions
The City is currently paying off the Civic Center Parking structure at a cost of $1,115,000 annually. These
payments will conclude June 2018. The Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) has also pledged Tax
4
Packet Pg. 117
October 27, 2015 Page 8
Increment funds to support repayment of any debt incurred to finance the Project (See Attachment 7). This
pledge includes up to $300,000 starting in 2019 and continues through 2031.
Using the above cost estimates and assuming a tax exempt financing, the annual debt service for the Project
could range from $559,000 to $868,000 annually depending on the term of the financing, as shown in Table 6.
Starting in 2019 the DDA funds will be available to pay debt service reducing the General Fund contribution to
$259,000 to $568,000 annually. The current approach assumes that General Fund reserves fund the debt service
in 2017 and 2018 until the Civic Center Parking structure funds and DDA funds become available. Therefore, the
total cost to finance the project could range from $5.8 to $6.3 million depending on financing terms. The total DDA
contribution could range from $2.4 to $5.4 million depending on the term of the financing.
Table 6
Estimated Financing Costs
Option 1 Option 2
Term 10 Years $868,000
Interest Rate 2.5% 4.0%
Annual Debt Service $868,000 $559,000
Less: DDA Contribution $300,000 $300,000
Annual General Fund Contribution $568,000 $259,000
Total Financing Cost $8,680,000 $11,180,000
General Fund Reserves (2017-2018) $1,736,000 $1,118,000
Total Financing Cost to the General Fund $6,280,000 $5,780,000
There may be other financing needs within the City between now and the proposed acquisition in the first quarter
of 2017. Therefore, this financing could be packaged with other needs to create even greater efficiency in
financing terms and interest. The above estimate is provided to illustrate the potential costs of financing the
Project and should not be considered the final cost.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Context map and Overall Site Plan (PDF)
2. Parking Garage plans (PDF)
3. Parking Structure renderings (PDF)
4. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, September 28, 2015 (PDF)
5. Landmark Preservation Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions (PDF)
6. Public Parking Opportunity areas (PDF)
7. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 8, 2015 (draft) (PDF)
8. Downtown Development Authority Resolution 2015-05 (PDF)
9. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 118
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 7
Jefferson Street
Chestnut Street
Walnut Street
Mountain Ave.
OLD TOWN RIVER DISTRICT
Parking
Structure
Site
How can we relate to both?
How can we add to both?
Bridging Distinct Zones &
Characters
ATTACHMENT 1
4.1
Attachment: Context map and Overall Site Plan (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
bike racks
bike racks
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 8
Overall Site Plan
ATTACHMENT #1 ATTACHMENT 1
4.1
Attachment: Context map and Overall Site Plan (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
X X
X
X X
X
W W W W
F F F F F
F
E E
T
T T T
E E
E E
CHESTNUT STREET
DOWNTOWN HOTEL
JEFFERSON STREET
20' WIDE ALLEY
242'-0"
O.T.O.
175'-0"
O.TO.
3200 RETAIL SPACE
OPEN AREA FOR
POTENTIAL BIKE SHARE
18'-11" 18'-11"
16 SPACES
16 SPACES
6 SPACES
5 SPACES
16'-5"
MEP/STORAGE
ROOMS 8.3% UP
RAMP
EXPRESS
13.6% UP
RAMP
EXPRESS
16'-5"
3'-0"
3'-0"
13 SPACES
5'-6"
HOTEL
PUBLIC
HOTEL
19 SPACES
5 SPACES
VAN
VAN
VAN
1'-0"
40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0"
ISOMETRIC
EXPRESS RAMP
GROUND LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
EL. 25'-8"
EL. 15'-0"
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
1 SECOND LEVEL
6.7%DN
RAMP
6.7% UP
RAMP
18'-11"
18 SPACES
18'-11" 18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0" 18'-11" 16'-5"
9'-0"
19 SPACES
16 SPACES
9 SPACES
9 SPACES
16 SPACES
14 SPACES
3 SPACES
3 SPACES
242'-0"
O.T.O.
175'-0"
O.TO.
13.6% DN
RAMP
EXPRESS
13 SPACES
2 THIRD LEVEL
8
'-9"
16'-5" 18'-11"
6.7%DN
RAMP
18'-11" 18'-11" 16'-5"
19 SPACES
16 SPACES
16 SPACES
14 SPACES
9 SPACES
175'-0"
O.TO.
13 SPACES
8'-9"
16'-5" 18'-11"
9 SPACES
18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0"
5 SPACES
18'-11"
18 SPACES
9'-0"
ISOMETRIC
EXPRESS RAMP
GROUND LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
EL. 25'-8"
EL. 15'-0"
EL. 0'-0"
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
LEGEND
2nd & 3rd Floor Plans
Chestnut Street Elevation
Building signage and Identification to match neigh-
boring City parking structures to provide a clear
wayfinding system within Downtown context.
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 17
BRICK
(GARDEN BLEND-
SMOOTH)
PRE-CAST
(LIGHT RED -
SMOOTH & TEX-
TURED)
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 3
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 4
INTERLOCKING
METAL PANEL -
(PREWEATHERED
ZINC)
PRECAST CONCRETE
PARAPET CAP
GROUND FACE CMU
PREFINISHED
OMEGA ECO FENCING
GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED
BAR GRATING
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
$/80,1,806725()5217
$/80,1,80
6725()5217
%5,&.
9(1((5
*$5$*((175$1&(
*$/9$1,=('
67((/&&+$11(/
*$/9$1,=('67((//$77,&(72
6833257*5((16&5((1
6<67(09,1(675(//,6
1$785$/9,1(62132:'(5
&2$7('0(6+6&5((1 ,17(*5$/&2/25
35(&$67
&21&5(7(
63$1'5(/
0(7$/&/$'',1*
0(7$/*5$7(:,7+
*$/9$1,=('67((/
Old Firehouse Alley Elevation
Bay patterns along alley are inspired by traditional
firehouse truck bays. Roll-up glass garage doors,
captured between a masonry frame will activate the
ground floor. Alley art will activate the spandrels
above the bays and provide visual interest for hotel
guests and pedestrians.
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 18
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
$ % & ' ( ) * +
*$/9$1,=('67((//$77,&(72
6833257*5((16&5((1
6<67(09,1(675(//,6
1$785$/9,1(621
32:'(5&2$7('0(6+
6&5((1
,17(5/2&.,1*
0(7$/3$1(/ =,1&
720$7&++27(/
$/80,1,80
6725()5217
%5,&.9(1((5
0(7$/3$1(/
*$/9$1,=('67((/&&+$11(/
,17(*5$/&2/25
35(&$67&21&5(7(
63$1'5(/
6725()5217
'2257<3
23(5$%/(29(5+($'
'2257<3
6725()5217
:,1'2:
&21&5(7(
%$6(
(;7(5,253/$67(5),1,6+3$1(/72
5(&(,9($//(<$577<3%$<6
0(7$/&&+$11(/
35(),1,6+('*$/9$1,=('0(7$/
&23,1*
6287+6&$/( )
,5(+286($//(<
BRICK
(GARDEN BLEND-
SMOOTH)
PRE-CAST
(LIGHT RED -
SMOOTH & TEX-
TURED)
Facing Linden Street Elevation
Secorndary facades within the Downtown and Civic Center Cores are rendered
in simple, modest materials and finishes (painted precast and stucco finish-
es). The proposed material selections are consistent with historic patterns of
Downtown Fort Collins - (active public edges and passive secondary edges).
Importantly, the rich material palete found on the primary facades shall “turn
the corner” into the secondary facades to wrap the edges
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 19
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
$/80,1,806725()5217
*$/9$1,=('67((//$77,&(72
6833257*5((16&5((1
6<67(09,1(675(//,6
,17(*5$/&2/25
35(&$67&21&5(7(
63$1'5(/
%5,&.9(1((521
&0867(0:$//
:35(&$67&$3
*$/9$1,=('67((/&&+$11(/
1$785$/9,1(62132:'(5
&2$7('0(6+6&5((1
23(5$%/(6725()5217'2257238%/,&
:$< 5$0383%(+,1'
:6&$(/(67
BRICK
(GARDEN BLEND-
SMOOTH)
PRE-CAST
(LIGHT RED -
SMOOTH & TEX-
TURED)
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 3
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 4
INTERLOCKING
METAL PANEL -
(PREWEATHERED
ZINC)
PRECAST CONCRETE
PARAPET CAP
GROUND FACE CMU
PREFINISHED
OMEGA ECO FENCING
The New Parking Structure shares a few of the following attributes and consistent fa-
cade character found along historic facades along Jefferson Street (one block away):
Base / Middle / Top
Variety in Single Facade: Bay Articulation / Punched Windows
Consistent Material Palette
Conveys the traditional size of historic buildings as perceived from street level
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 20
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
+ * ) ( ' & % $
%5,&. 9(1((5
3(5)25$7('0(7$/*5$7(:*$/9$1,=('
67((/)5$0(
72%(5(3/$&(':,7+6725()5217
:,1'2:6$1''2256:+(1)8785(
5(7$,/2)),&(,6%8,/7287
3(5)25$7('0(7$/
*5$7(:,7+
*$/9$1,=('67((/
)5$0(
,17(*5$/&2/25
35(&$67
&21&5(7(
63$1'5(/
$/80,1,80
6725()5217
*$/9$1,=('67((/
&&+$11(/
0(7$/&&+$11(/
35(),1,6+('*$/9$1,=('0(7$/&23,1*
&21&5(7(3/$17(5:)/2:(56 0(7$/3$1(/
$/9$1,=('67((/
$77,&(726833257
*5((16&5((1
<67(09,1(6
$785$/9,1(621
2:'(5&2$7('
(6+6&5((1
127&+$73$1(/-2,17
:,7+*$/9$1,=('0(7$/
5$,/,1*
1257+6&$/( -
())(5621675((7
Jefferson Street Elevation
BRICK
(GARDEN BLEND-
SMOOTH)
PRE-CAST
(LIGHT RED -
SMOOTH & TEX-
TURED)
One Building broken into smaller masses
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 21
Looking Down Chestnut Street
5.7 The overall height of a new building
should be compatible with the
historic district. A building height
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Preweathered zinc panels to match adjacent hotel
*final alley art (TBD)
5.10 Establish a sense of human scale in a building design.
›› Use vertical and horizontal articulation techniques to reduce the
apparent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest.
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 22
Looking Down Old Firehouse Alley
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 23
New Building
Variety in single facade:
5.6 Convey the traditional size of historic
buildings in new construction as it is
perceived at the street level.
Looking Down Jefferson Street
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
What If? We collaborate with CSU to develop a
“vertical vine testing ground”, similar to Denver
Botanical Gardens & Denver Zoo?
Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure
LPC Submittal
page 24
Looking Down Chestnut Street
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 28, 2015
Ron Sladek, Chair
Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Meg Dunn City Hall West
Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue
Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado
Dave Lingle
Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system
Tom Leeson Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana
Staff Liaison, PDT Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison
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.
Regular Meeting
September 28, 2015
Minutes
x CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
x ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Ernest, Sladek, Wallace
ABSENT: Zink, Gensmer and Lingle (all excused)
STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager
x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
x DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE - RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Located at 363 Jefferson Street, this project proposes a 323 stall parking
garage consisting of 83,847 square foot (3,200 mixed use and 80,647 square
foot parking area). The project will require a Type II (Planning & Zoning Board)
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
Approved by Commission at their October 14, 2015 meeting.
ATTACHMENT 4
4.4
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, September 28, 2015 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 28, 2015
hearing. The associated Downtown Hotel project was reviewed by the
Landmark Preservation Commission at a work session held on June 10, 2015,
during which time the Commission discussed the conceptual proposal of a
garage structure. At tonight’s meeting, the applicants are requesting a final
review of the project, and a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board.
APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan, Bohemian Companies
Staff Report
Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report.
Applicant Presentation
Lou Bieker with 4240 Architecture in Denver gave the Applicant presentation, noting that it had been
modified since the publication of the agenda packet, and a copy of the current presentation was
submitted into the record. He explained that Bohemian Companies is one of the Applicants, but the
City of Fort Collins and the DDA are really his clients for the parking structure.
Photos of the current street views were displayed. Applicable sections of the River District Design
Guidelines were noted. The Applicant spoke about the parking garage providing a bridge between
Old Town and the River District, and the importance of relating to both in its design. City guidelines
for street trees have been followed. Retail space is planned along the alley, and may be also
incorporated into the Jefferson Street side in the future. The ramping system is located in the interior
of the structure, so as not to be visible from the street. He discussed the similarities of the materials
to those used in the hotel, specifically the brick and metal screening elements.
Public Input
None
Commission Questions and Discussion
Hard copies of the Commission’s findings with regard to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel from the
September 9, 2015 meeting were distributed to the Members by Staff for reference.
Chair Sladek directed that the Commission first discuss adjacencies to the project. A Member
inquired about the “Quonset hut” buildings on Jefferson. Staff said they were surveyed about 10
years ago, and that some were determined to be potentially eligible at that time, and others were not.
However, there has not been a more recent review conducted.
Members asked about the buildings across Jefferson, and since there were no photos of that area
included in the packet, Staff displayed imagery from Google Maps Street View for the Commission. A
Member expressed interested in having information about the dates those structures were built, but
that information was unavailable. The Member said the process did not need to be delayed for that
reason, but that it would be nice to have that kind of information in the future.
Chair Sladek complimented the design, saying he appreciated the Applicant’s thoughtful analysis,
which went beyond the standards and requirements, resulting in a well-conceived project. He also
stated that it would be helpful to have additional drawings showing the garages in relation to some of
these buildings, but that was not necessary to their decision.
The Commission discussed how to craft the wording for the motion, findings of fact and adjacencies,
drawing heavily from the handout of the findings from the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel. Members
discussed the bridge formed by the project between the River District and the Walnut Street area.
After some clarification from Mr. Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney, the Commission added the River
District to the description of the project’s adjacencies.
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision
maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, approval of the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage
project located at 363 Jefferson Street, with the following findings of fact:
1. The adjacencies defined for the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel project at the September 9,
2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission also apply to this project,
with the addition of the River District.
4.4
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, September 28, 2015 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 28, 2015
2. The project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic
context for the following reasons:
a. The building uses historically sensitive materials and colors of materials that are
compatible with adjacent historic properties.
b. The project uses compatible solid to void pattern, typical of the adjacent historic
context.
c. The pedestrian scale of the proposed project is compatible with the historic
context.
Ms. Wallace seconded.
Ms. Dunn stated that she didn’t see the project as compatible to the neighboring district, based on Land
Use Code 3.4.7, specifically with regard to the cornice line and metal materials.
Motion passed 4-1, with Dunn dissenting.
[Timestamp: 6:51 p.m.]
x OTHER BUSINESS
None
x ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Attachment:
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort
Collins Downtown Hotel Project
4.4
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, September 28, 2015 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 10, 2015
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Seth Lorson, City Planner
FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to
the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel Project.
As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for
properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or
districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written
recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the
Commission’s Findings of Facts and its motion for this project.
1) The development project known as the Downtown Hotel is located adjacent to the Old Town
Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a
National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Armory Building, which is individually
designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers; additionally, it is adjacent
to properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation.
2) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the
development project known as the Downtown Hotel, and as authorized under LUC Section
3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts:
That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic
context for the following reasons:
a. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like
adjacent historic buildings.
b. The project uses massing location and appropriate step-backs to mitigate height,
relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block.
c. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are
compatible with adjacent historic properties.
d. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent
historic context.
e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the
historic context.
3) The Commission specifically discussed in its deliberations the applicants’ request for
modifications to two Standards, relative to the building’s height and setback, specifically:
Section 4.16(D)(2)(a), which permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet; and Section
4.16(D)(4)(a), which requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the
floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line.
the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel Project.
4.4
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, September 28, 2015 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
- 2 -
4) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a
vote of 8-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker,
the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the development proposal for the Fort Collins
Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with Land
Use Code Section 3.4.7.
4.4
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, September 28, 2015 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
ATTACHMENT 5
City of
ktColli~
Planning, Development & Transportation
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.27 40
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
DATE:
TO:
TH:
FR:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
October 1, 2015
Planning and Zoning Board y--
Tom Leeson, Interim Dir~e of Community Development & Neighborhood Services/
1
Seth Lorson, City Planner
Karen McWilliams, Histo Preservation Manager /v\J5 W f:" ~
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to
the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Project.
As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4. 7(F)(6}, in its consideration of the approval of plans for
properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or
districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written
recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the
Commission's motion and findings of facts for this project.
At its September 28, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of
4-1:
That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and
Zoning Board, approval of the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Project located at 363 Jefferson
Street, with the following findings of fact:
1} The development project known as the Fort Collins hotel Parking Garage is located adjacent to the
Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a
National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Downtown River District, a portion of which is
included in the National Register District. Additionally, the project is located adjacent to the Armory
Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers,
and to other properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation.
2} That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for
the following reasons:
a. The building uses historically sensitive materials and colors of materials that are
compatible with adjacent historic properties.
b. The project uses compatible solid to void pattern, typical of the adjacent historic
context.
c. The pedestrian scale of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context.
4.5
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Figure 1
Public Parking Opportunity Areas
ATTACHMENT 6
4.6
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Public Parking Opportunity areas (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 8, 2015
Page 6
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of
standard to section 3.8.30(F)(1) of the Land Use Code to allow a portion on the required 25’ buffer
yard abutting single-family homes to be reduced to 20’ based on the findings of fact on page 10
of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Affinity at Fort
Collins PDP #150010 based on the findings of fact found on page 10 of the staff report. Member
Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0.
The Board took a break at 7:55pm and resumed at 8:05pm.
Project: Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage
Project Description: This project proposes to construct a 3-level mixed-use parking garage with 325
parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363
Jefferson Street). The parking garage is proposed as a public-private partnership between the City of Fort
Collins, the Downtown Development Authority, and the developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian
Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality). 113 parking spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins
Hotel (approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 10, 2015) and 212 parking spaces will be
public parking managed by the City.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Cosmas reported that two items had been received since the work session: the LPC findings
of fact and conclusion from their September 28th hearing recommending approval, and an updated
modification request from 4240 Architecture, Inc., regarding the size of the parking stalls.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Lorson gave a brief overview of the project, showing slides of the site map, renderings and the
overall project dimensions. He stated that the right-of-way improvements are consistent with those
pertaining to the Fort Collins Hotel. He also reviewed the modification request details, answering some
questions that were previously brought up at the work session regarding the number of parking spaces
used seasonally by existing Fort Collins garages and showing capacity images of each. Lou Bieker,
4240 Architecture, also reviewed some of the major points of the project, incorporating the role of the
hotel and the River District into the overall design. He also illustrated some of the colors and textures
planned for the hotel, as well as the external landscaping plans for the project.
Public Input
None noted.
ATTACHMENT 7
4.7
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 8, 2015 (draft) (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 8, 2015
Page 7
Board Questions and Staff Response
Board members asked about the future occupation of the associated retail spaces, the modification
impacts, and long- and short-term parking needs of patrons. Larry Hofmockel, with Walker Parking
Consultants, stated that compliance with the City code would require elimination of an entire row of the
parking spaces planned; therefore, the modification is important. He added that the hotel-level parking is
considered long-term parking. There was in-depth discussion about the size of parking spaces with
respect to the various hotel levels and the parking needs. Josh Birks, Economic Health Director for
COFC, informed the group that his team has worked with Parking Services regarding the modifications to
standards and he believes they are consistent with the other facilities in town.
Board members also asked about the parking stall degrees relative to the distance when accessing the
stall and the justification for needing 20 feet for pulling out of an angled stall (pertains to the request for
modification for angled drive aisle standards). Planner Lorson suggested that perhaps the code should
be updated to better reflect the standards and requirements. Board members also asked who owns this
structure for future maintenance and security. Mr. Birks responded that there are several owners of the
parking areas (FC Hotel, Bohemian, and the COFC). Each owner will operate will operate different
floors, and a Condo Association will be established to specify the maintenance of garage.
Board members inquired about the progress in wayfinding, and Planner Lorson responded that there
would not be wayfinding established with this application. He acknowledged that this is currently part of
the Downtown Plan discussion. He added that the code standards have been reviewed extensively and
tests were done to ensure larger vehicles would be accommodated. Chair Carpenter asked about the
safety factors for drive aisle widths from an auto and a pedestrian standpoint. Board members asked
about the projected bike parking and whether alternative compliance was being proposed and whether
the P&Z Board would be the final decision maker for this project. The P&Z Board is the final decision
maker; however, it will be heard by the City Council eventually from a legislative standpoint. Mr. Bieker
also confirmed that this will be a public parking facility.
Board Deliberation
Each Board member presented their opinion: Chair Carpenter supports; Member Hart supports but has
some concerns with the modifications; Member Hobbs supports, especially the public/private partnership,
but still has some concern with the proximity to the transient population; Member Schneider does not
support the modification related to large and small vehicles, coupled with the low demand for this parking
garage; Vice Chair Kirkpatrick supports and would like to see a future review of the land use code
standards for parking; Member Hansen supports this project; and Member Heinz supports but still has
concerns over whether another parking garage is needed. Member Hart made a motion that the
Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to subsection 3.22(L) of the
Land Use Code related to the size of parking spaces based on the findings of fact on page 10 of
the staff report. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 6:1 with Member Schneider
dissenting.
Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins Hotel
Parking Garage PDP#150018 based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report.
Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0.
4.7
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 8, 2015 (draft) (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
ATTACHMENT 8
4.8
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Downtown Development Authority Resolution 2015-05 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
4.8
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Downtown Development Authority Resolution 2015-05 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
4.8
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Downtown Development Authority Resolution 2015-05 (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
1
Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership
Mike Beckstead, CFO; & Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
10-27-2015
ATTACHMENT 9
4.9
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Council Direction Requested
2
• Does Council have additional questions of staff?
• Is Council supportive of bringing this Proposal for Council
consideration on November 17?
Connection to Strategic Plans
3
Proposed Public/Private Partnership Consistent with Strategic Goals
4.9
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Parking Plan Summary
4
Parking Plan Identified This Location as a Need
• Parking Plan completed in 2013
• Identified 1,500 additional spaces required over next 10 years
• Further analysis identified six structured parking facilities in a ring
around Old Town
• A parking structure on Chestnut was one of the six identified
locations for structured parking
• Hotel and associated parking needs created opportunity for a
public/private partnership
4.9
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Overall Site Plan
5
• Retail Along Old Fire House Alley
• Future Retail along Jefferson Street
• Streetscape Improvements to Chestnut
and Jefferson Street
• Improvements to Old Fire House Alley
• Pedestrian Connection between Old Fire
House Alley and Jefferson Street
4.9
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
6
Parking Garage Overview
Tier Standard
Van
Accessible
Accessible Total
Ground 78 3 3 84
Second 117 0 3 120
Third 117 0 2 119
Total 312 3 8 323
Tier Hotel Public Total
Ground 84 0 86
Second 23 97 120
Third 0 119 119
Total 107 216 323
4.9
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
7
View from Chestnut looking at Alley
4.9
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
8
View looking down Old Firehouse Alley
4.9
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
9
View from Jefferson looking South
4.9
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Downtown Parking Structure Overview
10
PPP… City to Own Approximately 216 Spaces for Public Use
• Condo Ownership – Bohemian 1/3 (first floor) and City 2/3
• Bohemian/Hotel Company Builds the Parking Structure
• City Purchases Specific Spaces at Completion
• Property Owners Agreement Governs Operations & Maintenance
• City Parking Services operates and maintains
• Anticipated Cost - $11.5M = $35.6k per space including land
4.9
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
DDA Support
11
DDA - Strong Support for Parking Structure
• Responds to demand for new parking space needs as identified in 2013 Parking
Plan
§ Make it Happen: designed build a circulation system, minimize auto/pedestrian conflicts,
maximize convenience, solve a market use/mismatch.
§ Make it Happen Sooner: public infrastructure upgrade
• Supports the most flexible and exciting option for a hybrid-street design on the
200 Block of Linden Street
§ Makes it Better: place-making
• Corresponds with DDA’s desire to see development of a downtown hotel
§ Make it Happen: solve a market use/mismatch.
§ Make it Happen Sooner: reduce the risk of pioneering investment
4.9
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Timeline
12
Project Approval QIV 2015…. Property Purchase Early 2017
QIV QI-2016 QII QIII QIV QI-2017
P&Z Oct 9th
CFC Oct 26th
Council Nov 17th
• Purchase Agreement
• O&M Agreement
Hotel Construction Begins
Parking Structure
Construction Begins
City Property
Purchase
Hotel Opens
• Close Debt Financing
• Finalize DDA IGA
4.9
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Downtown Parking Structure Financing
13
Debt Service Available Within Existing Annual Debt Service in 2019….
Utilize One-Time Revenue or Reserves in 2017 & 2018
Debt Service Available Within Existing Annual Debt Service in 2019….
Utilize One-Time Revenue or Reserves in 2017 & 2018
• Current Planning Number - $11.5M total cost, City cost $7.6M
• Annual Debt Service
• 10 Years @ 2.5% = $ 868k
• 20 Years @ 4.0% = $ 559k
• Annual On-Going Funding Sources
• Current Civic Center Parking Debt Service – beginning in 2019
• Last payment June 2018
• City portion $1,115k (includes 215 N. Mason)
• DDA Support $ 275k - $300k - beginning in 2019
• DDA Resolution 2015-05 documents commitment
• Utilize GF reserves 2017 - 2018
4.9
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Purchase Agreement Summary
14
City to have construction cost oversight and maximum price
• City approval of the final plans and itemized cost estimate before
construction can commence
• Developer to deed at least 216 parking spaces
• Developer and City will execute an option agreement for future
retail
• Purchase price equals land cost ($2,018,835) plus share of costs for
construction not to exceed $7,600,000
4.9
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Council Direction Requested
15
• Does Council have additional questions of staff?
• Is Council supportive of bringing this Proposal for Council
consideration on November 17?
16
Back-Up
Information
4.9
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Finance – Next 6 Months or Wait a Year
17
Rate Movement Difficult to Predict….
Recommend Locking in on Today’s Lower Rates
Rate Movement Difficult to Predict….
Recommend Locking in on Today’s Lower Rates
• Finance Q1 2016 & Lock in Low Rates
OR
• Finance Late in 2016 and Avoid 9-12 Months Interest
• Staff Analysis – Rate Sensitivity
• Assumptions:
• Current 10 year rates - 2.25%
• Current Interest Earnings – 1.25%
• Borrowing 12 months apart
• NPV of Cash flow Indicates If Rates Move More Than 60 Basis Points Better to Finance
Now
4.9
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Cost Detail
Table 1 – Cost by Use
18
Cost Item Stalls Parking Retail Site Total
Land $ 1,722,819 $ 153,442 $ 142,573 $ 2,018,835
Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 533,358 $ 47,503 $ 44,139 $ 625,000
Soft Costs $ 1,149,920 $ 102,417 $ 95,163 $ 1,347,500
Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 42,669 $ 3,800 $ 3,531 $ 50,000
Construction Costs $ 6,425,755 $ 572,307 $ 531,769 $ 7,529,831
TOTAL $ 9,874,521 $ 879,470 $ 817,175 $ 11,571,166
$ / Stall 323 $ 30,571 n/a $ 2,530 $ 35,824
$ / Gross Square Feet $ 82.75 $ 274.83 $ 15.27 $ 93.94
Gross Square Feet 119,328 3,200 53,517 123,177
4.9
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Cost Detail
Table 2 – Cost by Owner
19
Cost Item Developer Retail City Total
Land $ 617,947 $ 153,442 $ 1,247,445 $ 2,018,835
Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 191,307 $ 47,503 $ 386,190 $ 625,000
Soft Costs $ 412,458 $ 102,417 $ 832,625 $ 1,347,500
Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 15,305 $ 3,800 $ 30,895 $ 50,000
Construction Costs $ 2,304,814 $ 572,307 $ 4,652,710 $ 7,529,831
TOTAL $ 3,541,831 $ 879,470 $ 7,149,865 $ 11,571,166
$ / Stall $ 33,101 n/a $ 33,101 $ 35,824
Stalls 107 n/a 216 323
4.9
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
Garage Plans – Floors 2 & 3
20
2nd
Floor 3
rd Floor
4.9
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 3
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 4
INTERLOCKING
METAL PANEL -
(PREWEATHERED
ZINC)
PRECAST CONCRETE
PARAPET CAP
GROUND FACE CMU
PREFINISHED
OMEGA ECO FENCING
GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED
BAR GRATING
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED
BAR GRATING
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 3
PREFINISHED
ALUMINUM
-COLOR 4
INTERLOCKING
METAL PANEL -
(PREWEATHERED
ZINC)
PRECAST CONCRETE
PARAPET CAP
GROUND FACE CMU
PREFINISHED
OMEGA ECO FENCING
GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED
BAR GRATING
ATTACHMENT #3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
)5$0(
$57:$//
35(&$673/$17(5
&2/25
&2/25
5$0383%(<21'
(6&$$/67 ( & +
(67187675((7
BRICK VENEER
ATTACHMENT #3 ATTACHMENT 3
4.3
Attachment: Parking Structure renderings (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
6.7%DN
RAMP
6.7% UP
RAMP
18'-11"
18 SPACES
18'-11" 18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0" 18'-11" 16'-5"
8'-9"
19 SPACES
16 SPACES
9 SPACES
9 SPACES
16 SPACES
14 SPACES
3 SPACES
3 SPACES
242'-0"
O.T.O.
175'-0"
O.TO.
13.6% DN
RAMP
EXPRESS
13 SPACES
8'-9"
16'-5" 18'-11"
6.7%DN
RAMP
18'-11" 16'-5"
19 SPACES
16 SPACES
14 SPACES
9 SPACES
175'-0"
O.TO.
13 SPACES
8'-9"
18'-11"
9 SPACES
18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0"
5 SPACES
ISOMETRIC
EXPRESS RAMP
GROUND LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
EL. 25'-8"
EL. 15'-0"
EL. 0'-0"
ADO
COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE
OPTION 3C
SECOND & THIRD LEVEL
X X
X
CHESTNUT STREET
175'-0"
O.TO.
OPEN AREA FOR
VAN
" 40'-0" 1'-0"
ISOMETRIC
EXPRESS RAMP
GROUND LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
EL. 25'-8"
EL. 15'-0"
EL. 0'-0"
GROUND LEVEL
CAR COUNT BASE OPTION
9'-0" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B+)
8'-9" 65° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B)
TIER STANDARD VAN
ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE TOTAL
GROUND 80 3 3 86
SECOND 117 0 3 120
THIRD 117 0 2 119
TOTAL 314 3 8 325
ATTACHMENT #2
4.2
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Parking Garage plans (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)
EL. 0'-0"
LEGEND
NORTH
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3-1
OPTION 3D
GROUND LEVEL
UND LEVEL
CAR COUNT BASE OPTION
9'-0" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B+)
X X
X
E E
T
T T T
E E
E E
CHESTNUT STREET
JEFFERSON STREET
20' WIDE ALLEY
POTENTIAL RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE
RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE
242'-0"
O.T.O.
175'-0"
O.TO.
3200 RETAIL SPACE
OPEN AREA FOR
POTENTIAL BIKE SHARE
18'-11" 18'-11"
16 SPACES
16 SPACES
6 SPACES
5 SPACES
16'-5"
MEP/STORAGE
ROOMS 8.3% UP
RAMP
EXPRESS
13.6% UP
RAMP
EXPRESS
16'-5"
3'-0"
3'-0"
13 SPACES
5'-6"
HOTEL
PUBLIC
HOTEL
19 SPACES
5 SPACES
VAN
VAN
VAN
1'-0"
40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 1'-0"
ISOMETRIC
EXPRESS RAMP
GROUND LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
EL. 25'-8"
EL. 15'-0"
EL. 0'-0"
RADO
COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE
OPTION 3C
GROUND LEVEL
CAR COUNT BASE OPTION
8'-9" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B)
8'-9" 65° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B)
TIER STANDARD VAN
ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE TOTAL
GROUND 80 3 3 86
SECOND 117 0 3 120
THIRD 117 0 2 119
TOTAL 314 3 8 325
Ground Floor Plan
POTENTIAL RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE
RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE
ATTACHMENT #2 ATTACHMENT 2
4.2
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Parking Garage plans (3693 : Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership)