HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/07/2014 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2014, APPROPRIAgenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 7, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2014, Appropriating Capital Project Funding in the Light and Power,
Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Drainage Enterprise Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program, for the
Construction of a New Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue and Renovation of 700
Wood Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Appropriation Ordinance is to provide funding for the construction of a new Utility
Administration Building within Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue, as well as renovation of the existing Utility Service
Center at 700 Wood Street. The total combined project costs are $23,411,000 with $4,500,000 already
appropriated from Light and Power reserves, leaving $18,911,000 to be appropriated with this ordinance.
A Utility Building Team comprised of internal staff and external subject matter experts has worked with the
architectural firm RNL and Adolfson and Peterson Construction to assess the best way to address the current
building performance and space issues facing Fort Collins Utilities’ ongoing and future business operations.
Balancing the city-wide goal to have high-performing office buildings with the need to be fiscally prudent has
led the Building Team to recommend the two-pronged funding process proposed in this appropriation
ordinance.
The four Utility Enterprise Funds (Light and Power, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater) will share the costs of
the projects. All appropriations will come from the existing reserves in these four funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff has discussed this project twice previously within the last year with the City Council Finance Committee,
and with the whole City Council at its November 19, 2013 Work Session and most recently at the September
30, 2014 City Council Work Sessions, each time providing information regarding the Utility Service Center
(USC) at 700 Wood Street and the proposed Utility Administration Building (UAB).
During the September 30, 2014 Work Session, Council asked questions that required additional
research. The first Attachment is a timeline that identifies key dates and decisions related to the
recommended improvements to 700 Wood Street and the proposed new Utility Administration
Building.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 2
So far, the City of Fort Collins has spent $874,697 and encumbered another $1,413,159 under the
Capital Project 501.5010020000
Questions from September 30, 2014 Work Session
When did City Council authorize the use of funds to begin the design of a new building?
Answer: The City Council authorized the use of such funds in the 2008-09 City Budget. The attached pages
(Attachment 2) are taken from the 2008-09 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget documents which
reflect the budget approved by the City Council. The offer summary on page 58 of the Capital Improvement
Budget document describes the use of the $4,957,977 for “a capital project to replace the existing Light and
Power crew building, construct covered line truck parking, and to build a wash-down area for service vehicles.
Also included are Light and Power’s portion of the funds needed for energy improvements to the existing
service center and initial funds for the purchase of a new customer service center.” [emphasis added]
Also attached (Attachment 3) please find the Agenda Item Summary and Ordinance No. 149, 2006, from the
September 19, 2006 City Council meeting authorizing the transfer of properties between the General Fund and
the Wastewater Fund. One of the properties being exchanged was the Police Annex on LaPorte for a future
Utilities Customer Information Services office.
How are Stormwater Capital Projects prioritized?
Utilities uses a long range Master Planning process to determine the Capital Project needs for the Stormwater
Enterprise. This is our guide for what is requested each cycle in the Budgeting for Outcomes process. As a
result of the Stormwater Repurposing work conducted from 2009-2012, this Master Planning process
incorporated a three pronged approach to project prioritization: (1) the existing flood protection and mitigation
ranking, (2), the addition of Stream Restoration/Rehabilitation funding, and (3) Unranked projects such as
cooperative projects, redevelopment, or Council directives. The amount of revenue requested each cycle
varies to allow the Stormwater Enterprise to build up the unappropriated reserves and fund larger multi-million
dollar projects in future years.
How did the Utility Administration Building fit into this prioritization?
The Utility Administration Building (UAB) would be funded under the third criteria – Unranked Redevelopment
Projects. The September 30, 2014 AIS regarding this item showed that the Stormwater Enterprise had
approximately $6.9M in unappropriated reserves (working capital) from which staff is requesting the use of
$2.9M for construction of the UAB.
How are Stormwater Reserve funds prioritized?
Utilities Master Planning process identifies unappropriated reserves to be requested in a future budget cycle
for the completion of the next highest priority projects, namely completion of the North East College Corridor
Outfall (NECCO), the Jefferson St/Lincoln St Drainage system to serve the River District, or the Magnolia St
Outfall the serve the southern portion of Old Town. The Mail Creek project is ranked as number 3 under the
second criteria – Stream Restoration/Rehabilitation. Based on our Master Planning process, we would request
funds in the 2017-18 BFO process to construct this project.
Council Options
Council certainly has the discretion to change the timing or amounts of any of these projects. Staff can provide
any requested information on how such change would impact the completion of the overall system needs.
The USC has grown through seven additions to its current 108,000 square foot capacity over the past 45
years. Key drivers that support the renovation of the USC and addition of a new building to house Customer
Service are:
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 3
Space needs – Space is in poor condition and inadequate for growing business operations necessary
to support current Fort Collins community service delivery expectations;
Energy Efficiency – The USC building is one of the least energy efficient buildings owned by the City;
HVAC system replacement and building envelop improvements are necessary;
Customer Service - Customer Service has been located in leased space for over 20 years; customer
parking is inadequate at current location.
Initially, to address the immediate need for additional crew space and to provide some funding for a new office
space for customer service, the Light and Power Enterprise Fund appropriated $4.5M. Recognizing ongoing
space needs will impact Fort Collins Utilities’ effectiveness to maintain current levels for customer service and
customer satisfaction in the near future, it was determined as far back as at least 2006 that it is highly
desirable to relocate several external customer-focused departments at a single location downtown. A
comparison of the costs associated with the USC addition to the costs of new construction led to the
recommendation of a more limited renovation at 700 Wood Street and building a new Utilities Administration
Building downtown as part of the development of Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue as discussed at the November
19, 2013 Work Session.
Capital projects are prioritized within each utility. Ten year capital improvement plans have been updated in
2014 for three of the four utilities with Light & Power scheduled for 2015. This project has the distinction
among capital projects of spanning all four utilities. While it is possible to build part of the buildings now to
meet the immediate needs of Light and Power and then part of it in a few years to meet the Water utility’s
anticipated space needs, and then later for Wastewater and Stormwater, such a piece mill approach is not
optimal. This infrastructure project will not require redeployment of utility staff from other capital projects to
complete. Based on historical and anticipated capital spending, staff anticipates that all other capital projects
will proceed as planned.
The ratepayers of the four utilities will benefit from this appropriation as this project provides:
Office space owned by the utilities to house the entire Customer Service department in a single
location thereby allowing for efficient and effective customer service
Adequate, more modern facilities for utility personnel to perform front office and back office duties
necessary to maintain and operate utility infrastructure to meet customer service level expectations
An opportunity for the utilities to demonstrate to the community how the City is meeting Green Building
initiatives
The vision for both the UAB construction and the USC renovation is one that will demonstrate how facilities
can serve as a model in environmental stewardship to the Fort Collins community. Sustainability for the 21st
Century is a defining focus of Utilities core services; delivering a level of service our customers expect and in
an environmentally and socially responsible way while making the best economic choices for the long-term.
The Building Team recommended the two projects be combined into one design and funding process in order
to align the vision and results of both projects and optimize economies of scale.
These projects present an excellent opportunity for Utilities to “walk the talk” by demonstrating best practices in
high performance new construction and retrofit projects. Based on energy studies at the USC and what is
being accomplished in new construction, it is proposed that these two facilities be designed to be “net zero
energy ready.” This means that the buildings will be designed and constructed to have very low energy use,
such that the addition of on-site renewable energy would result in net zero energy consumption on an annual
basis. The new UAB will achieve a LEED Gold certification at a minimum.
Utility Administration Building (UAB)
This new building would house the entire Customer Connections Department and some senior management of
Fort Collins Utilities. At 37,500 square feet, this building will meet the long term space requirements of the
Customer Connections department and administrative functions that would be relocated from the Utility
Service Center and space currently leased by Fort Collins Utilities from the City’s General Fund at 117 North
Mason. Space initially unused by Utility staff would be leased in this building to the City’s Sustainability
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 4
Services Area until it is needed by Fort Collins Utilities.
The construction of the 37,500 square foot Utility Administration Building is expected to cost $14.1M as shown
in the table below:
UAB Budget $14,100,000
Includes…
Capacity for staff through 2028
Water source heat pump system
Open office environment
LEED Gold certification
PV system on roof for Net Zero building
1% for Art in Public Places
The $14.1M provides sufficient funding for the new construction and providing a rooftop solar photovoltaic
system to make the UAB at or near a Net Zero building. There may be an opportunity in the future to add a
ground source geo-thermal heat exchange system within Block 32 which would also improve the energy
efficiency of this building.
This appropriation request, however, does not provide sufficient funding to also install high efficiency fiberglass
windows, implement a ground source geothermal heat pump, or furnishings for an external plaza area. The
costs associated with these additional energy efficiency improvements are:
Additional Energy Efficiency Improvements Added Cost…
Install Alpen 725 Series fiberglass windows $220,000
Ground Source Geo-thermal system for heat pumps $300,000
Add additional site furnishings for exterior plaza area $120,000
$640,000
Diagonal and parallel parking has been added along Howes Street increasing the number of spaces available
by 25 spaces between LaPorte Avenue and Cherry Street. Most of the employees who will be occupying this
building already work downtown at 117 North Mason. It is anticipated there will be 41 employees relocating
from 700 Wood Street to this building. Parking Services has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the parking
garages during business hours for these 41 employees.
Utility Service Center (USC)
The new building on LaPorte Avenue would relieve some of the space needs at the USC. However, there
remain operational needs which would best be met by also renovating the existing space at the USC. Such a
renovation would modify some existing space to meet the Light & Power crew needs as well as improve the
building’s security and energy efficiency. The current HVAC system is at the end of its life and will require
significant investment over the next few years even without this renovation. Incorporating the HVAC
investment into a more comprehensive renovation of the entire building envelope will substantially improve the
energy efficiency of the building.
The renovation of existing space at the USC is expected to cost $9.3M as shown in the table below:
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 5
USC Budget $9,311,000
Includes…
L&P Crew Space
HVAC Replacement to water source heat pump
Renovated entrance area
Security Enhancements
Window replacement
Skylight repair & solatubes
Additional roof insulation
1% for Art in Public Places
The budget provides sufficient funding to fully address the Light & Power crew space needs, replace the
current HVAC system, renovate the entrance area, improve building security, and provide extensive building
envelope improvements. Building envelope improvements include replacing the current exterior windows,
repairing the existing skylights, and adding roof insulation. Making these improvements will result in a lower
cost HVAC system and long-term energy savings as well as move the building closer to being a net zero
energy building. There may be an opportunity in the future to add a ground sourced geo-thermal heat
exchange system within Block 32 that would improve the energy efficiency of this building even more.
This appropriation request, however, does not provide sufficient funding to also implement a geothermal heat
exchange system, remove existing interior walls to create an open office environment, acquire new furnishings
or provide a solar array to achieve net zero energy consumption. The costs associated with these additional
energy efficiency improvements are:
Additional Energy Efficiency Improvements Added Cost…
Lake GeoExchange system * $150,000
Open office environment, new finishes $2,300,000
PV system for Net Zero $2,000,000
$4,450,000
* Does not include lease agreement for access to the pond
The baseline budgets for both projects include all permit and development fees, deconstruction costs and
sufficient contingency funding for reasonable contingencies. Combining the two projects into the single
appropriation being requested herein of $18.9M includes the associated 1% appropriation for Art in Public
Places.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 6
Combined Projects Summary
Staff Recommendation for new UAB: $14,100,000
Staff Recommendation for USC Renovation: $9,311,000
Total Construction Budget $23,411,000
Less Prior Appropriation $4,500,000
Proposed Appropriation $18,911,000
The appropriation request is allocated to the four utilities as follows:
Enterprise Fund
Project
Share
Share of Projects
Cost
Less Existing
Appropriation
Funds Being
Requested Here
Light & Power 50.0% $11,705,500 $4,500,000 $7,205,500
Water 25.0% $5,852,750 $5,852,750
Wastewater 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
Storm Drainage 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
100.0% $23,411,000 $4,500,000 $18,911,000
A memorandum dated January 23, 2014 to the Council Finance Committee outlined the rationale behind
recommending that the appropriation be made from the cash reserves of the four utility Enterprise Funds
rather than through a debt issuance as had been previously discussed with the City Council. Funding with
available cash is preferred based on the collective healthy balance of the utility Enterprise Fund Reserves,
consistency with historical facility improvement funding, consistency with the City’s “pay as you go” philosophy,
the relatively low yield of these cash reserves compared to the current borrowing rate, and the complication of
issuing debt across the four utilities. Council Finance Committee was supportive of using cash at the January
27, 2014 committee meeting.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The financial impact of this appropriation on the short term financial health of the four utility Enterprise Funds
will be to reduce the amount of unappropriated cash reserves held by each utility. These reserves are used for
capital projects associated with aging infrastructure replacement and renewal, growth, and new regulatory
requirements. The reserves grow through development fees and operating revenues in excess of actual
operating expenses. Higher than projected development fee revenues in 2013 allowed three of the four
utilities to increase reserves in 2013. The Water Enterprise Fund reserves decreased from $67.0M at the end
of 2012 to $65.5M through 2013. However, higher than budgeted development fees, along with additional
revenue from the sale of excess treatment capacity, should increase the working capital for the Water Fund by
$5-8M in 2014. No capital projects identified and submitted for consideration in the 2015-16 Budgets are being
impacted by this appropriation.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 7
Plant Investment Fee Revenue
Chapter 26 of the City Code contains three sections that define the purpose for which PIF revenue can be
used. In summary, the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater PIFs are essentially “used for growth-related
capital expansion costs” related to operational facilities and infrastructure and not office facilities. Light and
Power fees cover the cost of extending infrastructure to the specific development that paid the fees.
Because office facility and building needs are not specifically included in any of the PIF calculations, based on
the stated purposes within the City Code, PIF revenues are not to be used to finance the construction of a new
UAB. Staff understood from the September 30th Work Session that Council may be interested in changing the
City Code to allow for PIF revenues to be used for such purposes in the future.
Reserve Balances
The table below summarizes the reserve balances for these Enterprise Funds at the end of 2013 and after this
appropriation.
Enterprise Fund
Cash &
Investments
(12/31/13)
Available
Working Capital
(12/31/13)
Funds Being
Requested
Here
Available Working
Capital After This
Appropriation
Light & Power $55.3 $26.6 $7.2 $19.4
Water $65.5 $8.5 $5.8 $2.7
Wastewater $33.1 $17.8 $2.9 $14.9
Storm Drainage $17.2 $6.9 $2.9 $4.0
$171.1 $59.8 $18.9 $40.9
$ in millions
Fort Collins Utilities has historically used cash reserves to fund facility improvements. The USC was initially
acquired and built using cash reserves and multiple remodels and additions have occurred over the past 45
years at a total cost of $18.2M with funding from cash reserves. Several of these expansions were funded
across multiple utilities when expansion needs occurred simultaneously.
Use of these reserves will not trigger a rate increase for customers of any of the four utilities. The projected
increases in Light and Power rates in 2015 and 2016 are driven entirely by the increased costs associated with
generating the power from Platte River Power Authority. The proposed rate increases of 3% in 2015 and 2016
in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund have been planned ahead of the decision to recommend this appropriation.
The increased revenues from the proposed increases to the Wastewater utility are consistent with the long
term financial requirements and strategic planning based on the 10 year capital improvement plan for this
utility. It is anticipated that gradual, moderate rate increases may be required for some of the utilities over the
next few years which may be delayed by a year or two without this appropriation but the need for any such rate
increase will persist even without the appropriation, as it is driven by a longer term perspective of revenue
requirements and capital project planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Currently, energy use at the USC is responsible for over 1,000 tons/year CO2e in greenhouse gas emissions.
With efficiency upgrades at the USC (envelope and HVAC improvements) and high performance design at the
UAB, energy modeling shows the combined emissions for the two buildings at 850 tons/year CO2e, lower than
current emissions at the USC alone. The addition of solar PV systems will further lower these emissions.
Attention to water efficient design elements at UAB will optimize water use inside and out.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 8
Energy and water systems for the UAB are being designed in context with the future build-out of the Civic
Center complex. As such, the potential exists for developing campus-wide energy and water systems. For
example, heat pumps in the building will be able to tie into a campus wide GeoExchange well field to exchange
energy with the earth and adjacent buildings. PV systems on one building or a parking garage can share
energy with all Civic Center buildings, or possibly a larger energy district.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 7, 2014 meeting, the Energy Board (Attachment 7) unanimously approved the following motion:
“The Energy Board recommends to City Council approval of the Utility Buildings Appropriation
Ordinance scheduled for City Council First Reading on August 19, 2014 appropriating capital
project funding from the Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Funds, for
construction of a new Utilities Administration Building at the corner of Laporte and Howes and
renovation of 700 Wood Street.”
At its August 21, 2014 meeting, the Water Board (Attachment 8), 2014 unanimously approved the following
motion:
“In response to Staff’s request for consideration of the Appropriation Ordinance regarding the
Utility Buildings Appropriation Ordinance, being presented to City Council on September 2,
2014, I move that the Water Board communicate to City Council that the expenditure proposed
does not appear to compromise Utilities’ financial position.
Based on the lack of information provided to the Board regarding needs, alternatives, and
implications, a lack of time to consider what has been presented, the Board cannot comment
on the wisdom of the course forward despite their trust in staff. Because this appropriation
was not part of the Budgeting for Outcomes process, the Water Board is concerned about the
lack of transparency in the public process.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Utilities Customer Service Building Timeline (PDF)
2. 2008-09 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget documents (PDF)
3. Agenda Item Summary and Ordinance No. 149, 2006, September 19, 2006 (PDF)
4. Council Finance Committe minutes, September 16, 2013 (PDF)
5. Council Finance Committee minutes, January 27, 2014 (PDF)
6. Staff Memo re: Building Funding - Cash vs. Bonds, January 23, 2014 (PDF)
7. Energy Board minutes, August 7, 2014 (draft) (PDF)
8. Water Board minutes, August 21, 2014 (draft) (PDF)
9. Triple Bottom Line Analysis (PDF)
10. Council Work Session Summary, November 19, 2013 (PDF)
11. November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (PDF)
12. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
PROPOSED UTILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING TIMELINE
2010-2013
Site Planning,
Building Space
Analysis,
Architectural Design
2006
Property
acquisition
(ord 149, 2006)
2008-2009
BFO offer
approved by
City Council
2013
Nov 19 Work
session received
council direction
regarding building
2013-2014
Council Finance
Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee
Minutes
9/16/13
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck
Staff: Timothy Allen, Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Megan
Bolin, Steve Catanach, Chris Donegon, Brian Hergott, Brian
Janonis, Tom Leeson, Ken Mannon, Lawrence Pollack, Wayne
Sterler, Lance Smith, Steve Roy,
John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Douglas Donne, Daniel Parsons,
Allen Shuman
Approval of the Minutes
Mayor Karen Weitkunat moved to approve the minutes for the August 18 meeting. Bob Overbeck
seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
Block 32 Master Plan Review
Darin Atteberry explained that several years ago, Council allocated funds for improving the 700 Wood
Street facility. Before spending the funds, Utilities realized that a new building on Block 32 would better
solve long-term needs. The City of Fort Collins teamed up with RNL Design to look at a master plan for
Block 32 and see how it can be developed and where a new Customer Service Building might be located
on this block. As a Utility Customer Service Building would be the first of several improvements to Block
32, it is necessary to have a plan for Block 32 before beginning construction on the new Utility building.
RNL has developed several possible designs that incorporate the City’s vision, mission and values and
support a long-term vision for the City.
Brian Janonis explained that 700 Wood Street is an older building that is actually several buildings which
have been combined into one over the past 30 years. The resulting facility is one of the least energy
efficient buildings the City owns. Substantial improvements are necessary to address the inefficiencies.
An evaluation of the costs associated with these improvements and the necessary addition revealed that
it is a better long term investment to construct a new building and renovate a portion of the existing vs.
a full renovation and addition to 700 Wood Street.
Councilmember Bob Overbeck and Mayor Weitkunat asked several questions about the proposed plans
for Block 32. While Ken was able to present 3 rough sketches, more detailed and readable plans will be
necessary for a Council discussion and decision.
ATTACHMENT 4
2
The mayor noted that the first thing Staff needed to look at was how it messages this project to Council
and the public. Staff needs to present the need and show how this will be a positive thing for staff and
citizens. Staff should be focusing on social benefit of providing public service in a convenient location.
Utility Building/Financing
Lance Smith led a discussion on how a new Utilities Customer Service and Administration building would
be financed. Staff recommends a revenue bond to finance this project.
Preliminary discussions have resulted in the recommendation that the revenue bond be issued out of
one utility fund rather than having four separate, smaller revenue bonds coming to market at once.
Because the Light & Power Enterprise Fund is the largest utility fund, and it has debt capacity in excess
of $50M, it is the recommended utility fund. The other three utility funds would make annual transfers
to cover their portion of the debt repayment. This issuance will be for $15.5M, leaving more than $35M
in debt capacity. The only identified potential need for future debt issuance in the Light & Power Fund is
for the Mulberry Annexation which is several years into the future and is expected to be $10-15M.
In addition to the new building, this debt issuance would also allow for the renovation of existing space
at 700 Wood Street to meet growing operational needs. Together, the construction of the new building
and the renovation of the existing building are expected to cost $20M. Currently, the Light & Power
Fund has $4.5M in Reserves for this effort, leaving a need for $15.5M to be financed.
The new building would initially have unused space for the Utilities to grow into in the future. The City’s
Sustainability Services department could utilize this space through a lease arrangement which would
provide some revenue toward the debt obligation. Incremental revenues from expiring and new
service agreements are sufficient to cover debt obligations. This is significant because it means we
should not have to adjust utility rates to finance these improvements.
Utilities is seeking guidance on whether Council wants Fort Collins Utilities to continue to study and
design this new building and bring forth a bond ordinance to the Electric Utility Enterprise Board and an
appropriation request to City Council in early 2014 for this project. Construction could begin as soon as
May 2014 so it will be necessary to bring the bond ordinance before the City Council and Electric Utility
Enterprise Board in early 2014 for action. Lance presented an estimated timeline that included several
boards that would be consulted. The Mayor asked that the Parks board be added to the list. Darin
asked that Utilities also bring the information to the DDA.
The Mayor again emphasized the need for public outreach that emphasizes the social good of this
project. Darin noted that this improvement is part of moving toward Utilities of the 21st Century. It’s an
important, significant improvement for the community. It will also be a great boon for downtown
businesses as it will bring 135 more City employees to the downtown area.
The Mayor asked if a 25 year plan is adequate and appropriate. Darin noted that this would be similar
to the Police Building plan. Ken Mannon agreed that a 50 year plan may be better and he will look into
what a 50 year plan would look like and whether it would be possible.
Clean-up Memo Going to Council – Questions?
Lawrence Pollack asked if Council Finance had any questions concerning the 2013 Clean-up Ordinance
that is going to City Council for 1st reading on October 1, 2013. Bob Overbeck noted that he would like it
3
to be clearer whether the allocation for Cable 14 also includes Chanel 97. Mike Beckstead said that he
will look into the specifics of what was being asked for. The Mayor asked whether No. A. 5 and No. C.2
are actually the same monies. Lawrence confirmed that they are and this will be corrected before first
reading.
Next Steps
Staff will redesign the presentation of the Block 32 Master Plan to better speak to the social side of the
project.
Staff will bring the Clean-up Ordinance to Council on October 1, 2013.
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee
Minutes
1/27/14
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Mike Beckstead, Craig Foreman, Dawna Gorkowski, Marty
Heffernan, Mark Jackson, Brian Janonis, Jessica Ping-Small,
Ginny Sawyer, John Voss, Wendy Williams, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Approval of the Minutes
Mayor Karen Weitkunat moved to approve the minutes from the December 16 meeting. Bob Overbeck
seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
Utilities Building Financing Update
Mike Beckstead explained that Financial Services has been working with the Utilities finance team to
evaluate the possibility of using existing fund balance cash to fund the construction of the new CSA
building rather than borrowing through a bond offering. At the end of 2013, the four Utility Enterprise
Funds combined had $58 M in cash and investments available for funding future capital projects.
Mike said that cash earned approximately .9% in 2013 and borrowing rates are currently about 4.5%.
Staff believes that using available cash when earning rates are at historically low levels is an appropriate
use of existing cash. Conversely, issuing bonds for the CSA building would be complicated because each
enterprise fund is a unique entity and one cannot support the others. Staff has confirmed with bond
counsel that we can structure a deal, but only with many cross agreements between the Utility Funds.
Given the risk of other large capital projects within Utilities that will require funding within the next 5-10
years (i.e. Halligan Reservoir and Mulberry annexation), staff feels that the CSA building is a less
appropriate bonding candidate. Staff recommends using cash to fund the Utility CSA building.
Bob Overbeck asked Mike what savings would result from using cash rather than bonding. Mike replied
that there would be substantial savings, up to 5 M in the next 20 years. Bob asked if, despite the
potential savings, using cash on this project may put Utilities cash balances in jeopardy. Mike replied
that this project will only require 15 M of the 43 M available. Holding the cash for future projects with
uncertain timing requirements would be overly conservative.
Council Finance supports staff’s decision to use cash for funding the CSA building project.
ATTACHMENT 5
2
Parks Maintenance and Trail Funding
Trail Funding:
Marty Heffernan gave an overview of the City’s trail system, a system including 34 miles of paved trails
and 23 underpasses with a value of $39 million. Current plans will add 31 miles of new trail and 10
underpasses at a cost of approximately $23 million.
Funding for the trail system has come primarily from Conservation Trust (Lottery) proceeds. In 2001,
due to budget shortfalls, a significant amount of ConTrust funds were redirected to park and trail
maintenance. Currently, $735,000 of ConTrust funds are used for maintaining rather than building the
system. Of the approximately $1.4 million in funds that ConTrust provided annually in 2012 and 2013,
only $665,000 went to trail development. Natural Areas has provided $350,000 for trail development
since 2003, but this funding may not be available after 2014 due to Natural Areas’ needs.
Mayor Weitkunat noted that many aren’t in favor of any Natural Area funds being used to fund Trails
projects. She asked that Staff look for future funding plans that eliminate Trails’ reliance on these funds.
Marty explained that the City has about $6 million set aside for trail development in 2014 and 2015,
funding that will be expended on six major trail projects. In 2016, the City will still have 26 miles of trail
to build at a cost of over $17 million with only $665,000 in annual funding. This means it will take 27
years (2014 to 2040) to complete the trail system without additional funding.
Marty walked through four options for increasing trail funding:
1. Redirect all ConTrust funding to trail development
a. Provides ~$1.4 million annually
b. Builds out trail system in 14 years (2014 to 2027)
c. Requires replacement of $735,000 for park and trail maintenance annually
d. Replacement funds could be provided by a new park maintenance fee of ~$1 per month
or by the General Fund
Ross asked how much the General Fund was over projection in 2013 and if those excess funds could
provide the $735,000 needed for Option 1. Mike said that the General Fund was $5.5 million over
projection in 2013; however, much of that came from an increase in Use Tax, a volatile revenue.
2. The creation of a capital expansion fee for trails
a. Similar to our park capital expansion fees
b. One-time assessment (~$700) on new residential dwellings
c. Provides ~$500,000 annually
d. With existing ConTrust funding ($665,000) provides $1.165 million for trail development
e. Builds out trail system in 17 years (2014 to 2030)
Ross asked if this was the capital expansion fee that was dropped from the package of the updated
capital expansion fees passed by Council in 2013. Marty answered that this was from that study and
noted that, even with Trails added to the other updated fees, Fort Collins capital expansion fees would
still not be high compared to other municipalities in the Front Range.
3
3. Continuing Natural Area funding for trails ($350,000) if the County quarter cent tax for open
space is extended in 2018
a. Only affordable if the County 1/4 cent for Natural Areas is extended
b. Provides $350,000 annually
c. With existing ConTrust funding provides $1.015 million for trail development
d. Builds out trail system in 19 years
e. If combined with a trail impact fee (Option 2) builds out trail system in 13 years
f. Could delay infrastructure improvements (parking lots, restrooms) for newly acquired
natural areas
The Mayor noted that Council has not been interested in continuing to use Natural Area funds for
projects that are not directly tied to Natural Areas.
4. One-time Trail Funding
a. Dedicate one-time funding ($5 to $10 million) to trail development
b. Possible funding sources are BOB 2 or reserves
c. Current BOB 2 trail offer is for $2 million but could be increased
d. With current ConTrust funding builds out trail system in 13 to 20 years
The Mayor cautioned that, for trails to be funded by BOB 2, the offer would need to have strong public
backing. A good BOB 2 offer for Trail Funding would give the public clear details of what will be funded
and what the short-term benefit will be. Ross Cunniff added that Council is interested in this option;
they just need to see more data.
Park Maintenance:
Marty also presented the need for more park maintenance funding. The City has 44 neighborhood parks
and 6 community parks comprising 875 acres of developed parkland. Currently capital expansion fees
fund the building or our park system while the funding to maintain parks comes primarily from the
General Fund ($3,661,521), an amount of funding that hasn’t increased since 2006. Park maintenance is
also funded with KFCG dollars, fee revenue from rentals and ConTrust funding.
Over the next 15 years as the community grows, park capital expansion fees will fund construction of 10
new neighborhood parks and 3 new community parks. KFCG will provide maintenance funding for 4
neighborhood parks between 2016 and 2019. However, the average annual maintenance cost for these
neighborhood parks is approximately $35,000 per park, an ongoing expense; so if KFCG sunsets, an
alternative funding source will be needed.
Also, a new community park is being designed with construction scheduled for 2015/2016. Ongoing
maintenance funding of approximately $370,000 annually will be needed for this park beginning in 2017,
and one-time, start-up funding for tools and equipment will be needed in 2016. Staff will be requesting
the start-up funding from the General Fund in the 2015/2016 budget process.
While these new parks are provided to serve our growing population and a larger population should
produce additional General Fund revenue, Marty noted that an alternative funding source is needed for
maintenance of these new parks. He suggested a park maintenance fee as one possible way to fund
future maintenance. The fee would be approximately $1 per household, collected on the Utility bill.
4
The Mayor said that she supports finding a mechanism for funding maintenance. While the City always
sets aside funds for building the system, we have not yet set up a viable plan for maintaining what we
build. Mike noted that, if Council did choose to move forward with a park maintenance fee, a rebate
program for low-income would be provided.
Council Finance supports Staff’s efforts to find a funding mechanism for park maintenance and asks that
they move forward. Mike emphasized the importance of timing if Staff moves forward with a fee,
considering the many taxes that are coming up for renewal. Staff does currently have an RFP out for a
Fee Comparison study, a study that will give us a strong, broad view of how the City’s fees compare with
the Front Range’s. This study will give valuable guidance as we move forward with fee discussions.
Transportation Maintenance Fee Discussion
Mike noted that the topic of Street Maintenance Fees was brought to Council Finance in October and
November of 2013. A transportation maintenance fee was discussed as a potential alternative to the
1/4 cent tax that expires in 2015. Staff presented the fee study and its financial impact on local
businesses. While the cost can arguably be passed off to the customer, it would be difficult for
businesses to absorb the entire cost of the fee and there is a perception that the fee places a larger
burden on businesses.
Mike noted that some of the businesses that would pay the fee do not currently collect sales tax (i.e.
banks); for these businesses, the fee would be a completely new addition. Ross noted that the
businesses affected by the fee would be competing with businesses similarly affected by the fee, so the
addition in cost to the customer shouldn’t hurt the businesses. Ross asked that the fee discussion
continue.
The Mayor questioned continuing the fee discussion, saying that the fee places a large burden on
businesses and can be seen as double hitting the resident and the business owner. She believes that the
fee doesn’t have Council or citizen support, whereas the 1/4 tax does. Ross agreed that the fee needs to
be improved to become what is best for Fort Collins. Bob believes that Staff should continue to work on
the possibility of transportation Maintenance Fee. The Mayor asked what they hoped to see from Staff
if they continue. Bob replied that he’d like to have the discussion in a Work Session to get feedback
from the rest of Council and from citizens on what they actually support and what changes they would
like made. Darin Atteberry will talk to Councilmembers about the topic before it moves forward.
Grocery Tax and Utility Rebates: 2013 Report
Jessica Ping-Small said that the Finance Department currently administers three rebate programs for
low-income, senior and disabled residents. The rebates are for Property Tax, Utilities and Sales Tax on
Food. In May of 2012, City Council approved several improvements to the program which helped
increase the number of qualified applicants by 13% that year. Katie Wiggett gave an overview of the
2013 program. In 2013, Staff focused on continuing to simplify the process for applicants and on
promoting the program leading to an increase of 2% qualified participants.
2013 Outreach:
Translated the application into Spanish to help reach a larger demographic and made a
telephone translating service available to applicants
5
Distributed over 2,500 applications to low income PSD elementary schools in their Back-to-
School packets
Articles in the Coloradoan, in City News and a News Bulletin on Cable 14
Partnerships with local agencies such as the Larimer Food Bank, Volunteers of America, Larimer
Health and Human Services, etc.
Provided on-site help at the DMA and Senior Center
Application forms distributed to the Senior Center, Aztlan Center, Utility Billing Office and the
Workforce Center as well as to several senior living apartment clubhouses
Provided applications and advertising posters to the Villages low-income apartments
Applications mailed out to all applicants from the prior year
City webpage with downloadable application in English and Spanish
Information in the Senior Voice and available through United Way’s 211
Goals for 2014:
Continue with proven outreach strategies
Look for more effective ways to partner with PSD for targeted outreach
Develop strategy for better reaching Spanish-speaking community
Increase on-site application assistance at low income housing
Increased partnership with non-profits to advertise the program
Partner with the Social Sustainability Service Area to increase community outreach
Bob Overbeck suggested advertising the program on local radio stations and on Channel 97. The Mayor
suggested that the outreach to schools at the beginning of the school year might be less effective
because of all the paperwork that parents get at that time. She also asked about the logic of having the
program begin in August, suggesting that it might be easier for applicants if the program started closer
to tax season when more people had their documentation ready and are thinking about rebates. Staff
said they could move the program forward in 2015, but they would need 2014 to prepare applicants for
the change in deadlines.
Council Finance is pleased with the outreach efforts made in 2013 and the continued improvements to
the program. They feel that a change in scheduling for the rebate may be very helpful for participation.
215 N Mason Street
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6795
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Date: January 23, 2014
To: Council Finance Committee
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Topic: Utilities Customer Service & Administration Building Funding – Cash vs.
Bonds
Financial Services has worked with the Utilities finance team to evaluate the possibility of
utilizing existing fund balance cash to fund the construction of the new CSA building rather than
borrowing through a bond offering.
Combined, the four Utility Enterprise Funds have $169M of cash and investments at the
end of 2013. Deducting minimum fund requirements, yearend encumbrances, and
approved capital projects, $58M is available for future capital needs.
The $58M available increased from $34M at the end of 2012 because of strong revenue in
L&P, Development Fees and the onetime payment to the Water Fund from the FCLWD
agreement and spending below budget in all Funds.
Comparing interest earnings to the cost of borrowing – current cash earned approximately
.9% in 2013; borrowing rates are currently approximately 4.5%. While interest earning
rates are expected to increase, staff believes using available cash when earning rates are
at historically low levels is an appropriate use of existing cash.
Issuing bonds for the CSA building will be a complicated transaction given each enterprise
fund is a unique entity and one can’t support the others. We have confirmed with bond
counsel that we can structure a deal but with many cross agreements between the Utility
Funds. Future capital projects that are fund specific will be more appropriate bonding
candidate’s when/if outside funding is needed.
Large capital projects within Utilities that will require within the next 5-10 years have very
uncertain timing – i.e. Halligan Reservoir, Mulberry annexation. Holding the cash today for
future projects with uncertain timing requirements is overly conservative.
Staff recommends using cash to fund the Utility CSA building.
ATTACHMENT 6
Excerpt from Unapproved August 7, 2014 Energy Board Minutes
Building Appropriation Ordinance
(Attachments available upon request)
Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith presented two documents: (1) “First Reading
of Ordinance Appropriating Capital Project Funding in the Light and Power, Water, Wastewater,
and Storm Drainage Funds for the Construction of a New Utilities Administration Building in
Block 32 on Mason Street and a Renovation of 700 Wood Street” and (2) a PowerPoint on
“Financing a New Utility Administrative Building and Remodeling Wood Street.”
He recommended that the board consider providing meeting minutes to City Council ahead of
the August 19 Council first reading of the Appropriation Ordinance on the board’s discussion
and any recommendations.
Highlights from the discussion:
The existing Customer Service Center (CSC) at 117 N. Mason, which is owned by the
City’s General Fund, not the utility Enterprise Funds, has inadequate parking for
customers and is an old building with poor lighting, security and layout.
The Utilities Service Center (USC) on Wood Street is one of the City’s most energy in-
efficient buildings and requires significant upgrades: HVAC, windows, skylights,
external sealing. It also has not met fundamental space needs for many years. The
operations and crew space is limited, in poor condition, and features only single gender
capacity (Utilities hired its first female line-crew employee a few years ago and doesn’t
have adequate facilities). Estimate of additional space needed is 24,000 square feet (s.f.).
Increased security requirements post 9/11 are difficult to meet with public access to the
building, and long-term plans will eventually require the operations center to be more
centrally located rather than on the north end of the city.
The 700 Wood Street building will cost $9.3 million to renovate.
The Appropriation Ordinance will provide funding toward the construction of a new
Utility Administration Building on Mason Street as well as renovation of the antiquated
Utility Service Center on Wood Street. Total combined project costs are $23,411,000
with $4.5 million already appropriated from Light & Power reserves resulting in the
appropriation request being $18,911,000. The four Utility Funds (Light & Power, Water,
Wastewater, and Stormwater) will share the project costs. All appropriations will come
from available reserves in these funds.
The new Utility Administration Building will look similar to 215 N. Mason but will be
larger and more energy efficient, and will feature 37,500 s.f., three stories, and dedicated
parking. The cost will be $14.1 million.
Sustainability Services will lease space from Utilities. Utilities will eventually need that
space.
A photovoltaic (PV) system on the roof will generate enough solar energy to make the
building net-zero.
A board member inquired about the cost per square foot of the new building compared to
the cost of the building at 215 North Mason, and staff said they could research this
ATTACHMENT 7
information after calculating for inflation to compare it to the cost of the 215 N. Mason
building, which is about 14 years old.
A board member inquired about the total city budget; staff estimated it is approximately
$500 million. Utilities revenue is approximately $200 million.
A board member inquired whether funding of this project will increase his electric bill.
Mr. Smith explained it will not drive rate increases directly. It may accelerate rate
increases indirectly by a year or two or three.
Instead of revamping the interior of the Utility Service Center to an open style at a cost of
$2.3 million, the funds being requested will focus on renovating the exterior.
Mr. Phelan noted that Utilities has no choice but to do something because the building is
so antiquated; the HVAC system is at the end of its life. When the boiler went out last
winter, some employees were working in 50-degree offices.
A board member commented that when you consider the years of use, we’re getting our
money’s worth. A small percentage of the annual budget buys us 50 years of effective
operating space by renovating the 700 Wood Street building. He said he’d support the
ordinance on that basis.
A board member commented that increased energy efficiency will result in significant
cost savings.
Mr. Smith commented that operating expenses for Wood Street are $200,000 to $300,000
per year. The building is 115,000 s.f. and staff is looking for another 20 years out of that
building.
A board member inquired whether staff considered a new space that would last 50 years.
Mr. Smith replied that the building committee did. The two separate buildings are needed
because most people who park in the 700 Wood parking lot are not working in the
offices; they’re field crews who need space to park their equipment and vehicles.
A board member inquired whether Utilities employees separated into two buildings
would pose any problems.
Mr. Phelan stated that Utilities currently has two buildings and multiple plants. The 117
N. Mason Street building (containing the board room) would shut down and staff would
move to the new building that will be Gold or Platinum LEED-certified.
Mr. Smith said the City Council’s first reading of this ordinance will be on August 19,
and the second reading and adoption would be on September 2.
Chairperson Behm moved that the Energy Board recommend to City Council approval of the
Utility Buildings Appropriation Ordinance scheduled for City Council First Reading on August
19, 2014 appropriating capital project funding from the Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, and
Stormwater Funds, for construction of a new Utilities Administration Building at the corner of
LaPorte and Howes and renovation of 700 Wood Street. Board Member Moore seconded the
motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes August 21, 2014
Building Appropriation Ordinance
(Attachments available upon request)
Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager, presented information on appropriating
capital project funding for the renovation of Utilities Service Center at 700 Wood Street and
constructing the new Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue. The
project has been in the works for several years, and staff reviewed the details for City Council in
a Work Session last November.
The 700 Wood Street building is one of the city’s most energy inefficient buildings, has space
issues, and needs facilities to accommodate female members of the Light & Power (L&P) crew.
It is comprised of seven buildings that were constructed separately and later connected over the
past 45 years. Its antiquated HVAC system needs immediate attention. Renovations will cost
$9.3 million and include a water source heat pump to replace the HVAC system, L&P women’s
restroom and lockers, renovated entrance area, security enhancements, extensive envelope
improvements, window replacement, skylight repair and solartubes, additional roof insulation,
using existing walls/offices, and 1% for Art in Public Places as required by law.
Utilities is leasing the 117 N. Mason building currently from the City’s General Fund; it has
inadequate parking for utility customers, and there are future plans to use the building for other
purposes. Employees in that building would move to the new Utilities Admin Building.
Construction costs are estimated at $14.1 million, paid by the following funds: Light & Power
(50%), Water (25%), Wastewater (12.5%), and Storm Drainage (12.5%). Features include a
water source heat pump system, adequate space for growth through at least 2028, a photovoltaic
(PV) system on the roof for a Net Zero building, and 1% for Art in Public Places.
A January 23, 2014 memo to the City Council Finance Committee outlined the reasons for
recommending appropriation of cash reserves from the four utility Enterprise Funds rather than a
debt issuance as previously discussed with City Council: a collective healthy balance of the
reserves, relatively low yield (0.9%) of the cash reserves compared to the current borrowing rate
(approximately 5%), and the complication of issuing debt across the four utilities.
Highlights of the Discussion
A board member inquired about energy cost savings because this would help convince
City Council. Mr. Smith stated that staff did run the numbers, but he didn’t have them to
share at the meeting. The Utility Service Center (700 Wood Street) pays approximately
$100,000 per year in energy costs and would save roughly $50,000 after renovations.
The new Utilities Administration Building’s solar panels would produce enough energy
to offset consumption.
A board member asked several questions to clarify which building was getting renovated
(700 Wood Street, which would maintain the vehicle storage) and where employees at
117 N. Mason would go (to the new Utilities Administration Building one block north,
along with senior Utilities staff).
ATTACHMENT 8
A board member inquired about the need for improved customer access at 117 N. Mason.
Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering & Field Services Operations Manager, stated that the
City’s General Fund intends to use the building for another purpose, and that Utilities
would have to find another site even if the new administration building were not
constructed. Mr. Haukaas stated the entire block is under consideration for
redevelopment. Carol Webb, Interim Water Resources & Treatment Operations Manager
said multiple factors were involved in the decision to proceed with this capital project.
A board member inquired whether customers visit 700 Wood Street. Ms. Webb stated
yes, for various reasons. After the renovations and new building are completed, 700
Wood Street would house mostly crews.
A board member inquired why the City is not constructing a new building at 700 Wood
Street.
A board member inquired about the studies, assessments, and details that led to the
decision to renovate one building and construct a new administration building. He said he
wants more specificity (why the decision was made) in addition to the general
information staff is presenting to the board (project costs and funding).
Mr. Smith stated an assessment detailed space requirements for 700 Wood Street through
2028 and that energy modeling and forecasts for building efficiency were done as part of
the process.
Mr. Haukaas stated there wasn’t a single study covering the big picture; studies included
the space constraints of 700 Wood Street, which led to discussions of administrative staff
downtown, and another study of customer service. Strategy discussions by staff and the
Executive Lead Team led to the drafting of the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. Mr.
Haukaas said discussions and the process have been going on since 2005 starting with the
study of deficiencies for L&P at 700 Wood Street. In addition, 117 N. Mason is the
second leased home for the customer service staff, which was previously house in the 300
block of College Avenue; Mr. Haukaas stated the City should own the facilities that it
houses staff, and that would solve the customer service issue; he said he understood the
frustration about the project not being part of the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
process; one reason is that this project has been a much longer process than the two-year
BFO cycle.
A board member inquired why the project wasn’t part of the BFO process so that citizens
could comment on it and expressed concerns about the need for more accountability. Mr.
Haukaas stated the deadline for BFO offers was in April and therefore too early for the
staff to prepare all the information. Another issue is that the project is continually
evolving, and its large scope deserves a separate process.
A board member pointed out that this project hasn’t been written about in the newspaper.
Mr. Haukaas stated that the editorial board and the reporter who covers the City know
about the project. He stated that once funds are approved, Utilities will begin a targeted
outreach to the public to explain it.
A board member inquired about the length of the lease for 117 N. Mason. Mr. Haukaas
stated he believes it is year-to-year. Mr. Smith stated the Mayor commented in the City
Council Work Session last November that she remembered plans for the civic center
from when she served on the Planning Board
A board member inquired whether staff believes City Council will approve the Building
Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that if it doesn’t, Utilities still must address
the needs at 700 Wood Street.
A board member inquired whether the Board could approve appropriation for one
building and not the other. Mr. Smith stated the two buildings had been planned together.
Mr. Haukaas stated the two projects can’t be disengaged; to do one or the other would
cost different dollar amounts; this is most economical way to gain space and use funds. A
consultant told staff the HVAC at 700 Wood Street building is not salvageable.
A board member inquired about the timeline between approval of the appropriation (City
Council first reading is September 2) and building construction. Mr. Smith stated the
demolition of Block 32 Mason Street would happen in the next two to three months, and
it would be 12 to 18 months before employees of the new Utilities Administration
Building would move in. Occupancy in planned for spring 2016.
A board member read the emailed concerns of another board member who was unable to
attend the meeting. The concerns included whether it was really necessary to appropriate
funds for both buildings at the same time; the fact that the request being addressed
outside of the BFO process; and the lack of time to consider the request.
A board member inquired about reserve levels and whether it varies greatly from year to
year. Mr. Smith stated it doesn’t; staff tends to understate revenue and expect expenses to
be higher than they are; if staff’s conservative assumptions hold up, it’s likely reserves
will be in a better position than the Board is reading in the attachments. Reserves are
gradually increasing. Three of the utility funds increased in 2013; only the Water Fund
decreased.
A board member inquired whether the project can wait two or three years. Mr. Smith
stated the HVAC system at 700 Wood Street requires immediate attention, and the L&P
crew needs space, including the women’s locker room. The board member stated that the
HVAC can limp along, and Utilities could bring trailers in to house employees. Mr.
Haukaas stated this is not possible because trailers would be considered the same as
development, which has requirements for hookups, etc. Ms. Webb stated there would
have to be some analysis of where to put employees. Mr. Haukaas stated that Utilities is
making some teleworking arrangements, but because of the customer service required,
this is just a short-term solution.
A board member reiterated concerns that the appropriation should be discussed in a more
widely publicized process, such as BFO, for more accountability and to understand how
these decisions were made; also, did consultants forfeit the right to be hired for
construction of building, to ensure an impartial assessment? Ms. Webb stated that staff
might be able to provide some of that information.
A board member expressed the desire for a presentation from the building study group
and the space assessment consultant, because staff has done the job of stating how much
it will cost and what funds will pay it, but wants to know what we’re buying and why
we’re buying it. Mr. Smith suggested watching the video of the City Council’s November
2013 Work Session, in which they discussed building needs and the new downtown city
civic center plan.
A board member inquired that if energy efficiency is a main driver, why isn’t energy-
efficient windows included in the new Utilities Administration Building? Mr. Smith
stated that staff told Council the project would cost $20 million, so they’re trying to stay
as close to that amount as possible. The total project is estimated at $23 million.
A board member inquired how Utilities is overseeing the project. Mr. Haukaas stated a
Utilities staff member will be the project manager. Ms. Webb stated there has been a
rigorous process followed including a City Council Work Session, two readings of the
appropriation ordinance are coming up before Council; and that staff should have done a
better job of keeping this Board informed.
A board member inquired what would happen if the Board didn’t move on this agenda
item in this meeting. Ms. Webb said it’s on the public agenda for Council’s September 2
meeting, and can proceed without the Board’s support; the board can support it with
qualifications, and board members can attend the Council meeting and comment on it as
a board member or as a citizen.
Board members discussed concerns about the process and that they would have liked to
have been more informed of the details and reasons for the decisions. The perception is
that City Council will probably approve the Building Appropriation Ordinance and it’s
not fair to employees working in the two buildings on Wood Street and Mason Street to
have to wait longer for improvements. Mr. Haukaas stated staff has put together the best
package, the level of effort and level of scrutiny is high, and the project presented is the
best, most efficient option.
Discussion of the motion:
A board member suggested adding language about the process, transparency, and
accountability, public perception. Board members discussed other possible language for a
friendly amendment to capture their concerns. Board Member Brown agreed to the
amendments.
Discussion of the amended motion:
Board members commented on their discomfort on recommending approval without
more information on the process and reasons for the decisions.
Vote on the motion: 1 yeas, 5 nays, 1 abstention. The motion failed.
Board Member Michael Brown moved that the Water Board support the Utilities Building
Appropriation Ordinance being presented to City Council for first reading on Sept. 2, 2014.
Board Member Phyllis Ortman seconded the motion.
Board Member Michael Brown moved that the WB support the appropriation ordinance No.
114, 2014, regarding the Utility Buildings Appropriation Ordinance being presented to City
Council on Sept. 2, 2014. The Water Board is however concerned about the lack of time and
information provided to the Board and the public to consider the needs, costs, and implications of
this project. In addition the Water Board does not support this not being in the BFO process.
Discussion on the motion: None.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board Member Eccleston stated “In response to Staff’s request for consideration of the
Appropriation Ordinance No. 114, 2014, regarding the Utility Buildings Appropriation
Ordinance, being presented to City Council on September 2, 2014, I move that the Water
Board communicate to City Council that the expenditure proposed does not appear to
compromise Utilities’ financial position.
Based on the lack of information provided to the Board regarding needs, alternatives, and
implications, a lack of time to consider what has been presented, the Board cannot
comment on the wisdom of the course forward despite their trust in staff. Because this
appropriation was not part of the Budgeting for Outcomes process, the Water Board is
concerned about the lack of transparency in the public process.”
Board Member Huber-Stearns seconded the motion.
Form Completed Oct 28, 2013
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM)
Project or Decision: Blocks 32 & 42 – Master Plan Evaluated by:
Utilities Building
Team & City Staff
Social
Environmental Economic
Workforce/FLEX Community
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
More secure during the day.
Provides for future growth of City departments for
the next 50 years with additional space for future
buildings.
Both designs:
Provides all buildings in one central location. Easy
access for employees.
Provides good interaction between City
departments for collaboration.
Good access between new building Downtown
and 700 Wood St.
Provides improved wellness programs with open
space.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Ties in well with the current urban development so it
walks the talk of the City for development.
Howes remains as a through street for the public
use.
Jewel of the community as genuine civic park of
sufficient scale to meet Community needs in
downtown Fort Collins.
Giving back to the citizens a public square/civic
space. Place for community.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Provides a secure place for the public when using
the Civic Center area with the buildings surrounding
the area.
Provides a tie between the CSU oval and the
relationship the City has with the University.
Provides a buffer to the residential neighborhood
from the Civic space.
Both designs:
Have a large dedicated open space for Civic events.
Provides all City Customer Services in a central
location for one stop shopping.
Extends from the existing diagonal walkway through
the existing civic park.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Higher density minimizes the impact with smaller
development footprint and maximizes the open space.
Buildings are on smaller footprint which results in less
building surface area.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
This design allows for the best sustainable practices to be
implemented.
Both designs:
Potential site for geo-thermal systems which can serve the
Form Completed Oct 28, 2013
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Lack of expandable space and departmental
growth with current design.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Building users and customers will have Howes
street to cross when going between the various
buildings.
Both designs:
Lack of parking for City employees, until parking
garage is constructed.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Connection with residential neighborhood with the
large civic space and noise.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Splitting of Howes street will create some concerns
for the public with having to cross the street for
access to the various buildings.
Both designs:
Unsure of how much use the Civic space will see
from the public.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Geo-thermal systems would need to be placed under new
structures unless there is commitment to maintain Civic
space for this use.
More challenging to design the east/west building
orientations.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Having Howes street go through the development creates
car centric environment.
Installation of the eco water system for the entire
development with the street running through the
development.
Both designs:
Must deal with the existing detention pond in NE corner of
development.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Challenge to get building efficiency if east/west orientation is
not maintained.
Ability to secure and maintain boundaries on all four sides of
the Civic space for events.
Future growth of City departments for the next 50 years does
not provide for future buildings.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Losing potential lease for FoCo on Block 32 (Depends on
timeline for phase 2).
Both designs:
Lose Eco-thrift as block is developed.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Works for both designs:
Create relationships across the various building
departments.
Potential to provide City employee functions
(picnic) locally so employees would be able to
come and go as available.
OPPORTUNITIES:
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS
Derived from a TBLAM Brainstorm on
DOWNTOWN CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING AND
RENOVATED UTILITY SERVICE CENTER
In Collaboration with the BUILDING TEAM
Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line information from a TBLAM, and use that information to
offer recommendations on key indicators and suggested action items for the proposed new
City Building to be located near Mason + LaPorte
I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM):
A. The TBLAM effort so far (performed late in the project team’s discussions of this project) was generally
well balanced, with a good variety of strengths and limitations identified.
B. The TBLAM exercise placed future opportunities in with strengths and future threats into limitations.
C. Many considerations crossed into many columns, and rows.
1. Crossing columns indicates excellent depth of discussion and debate.
2. Crossing of rows indicates potential for conflicting values.
D. More discussion after this or additional TBLAM exercise(s) will provide more granular detailed data for
Economic strengths and limitations. However,
1. New building offers much needed space as well as centralization of City Utility Customer services.
2. Made very clear during the TBLAM effort is the inefficiency and limited space offered by the current
USC buildings; urgency expressed not to lose track of the need to renovate this facility.
E. The Social component of the TBLAM was exceptionally vigorous during this analysis, for both City staff
and for the public user, and outweighed either the Environmental or Economic components of TBL.
F. One limitation included ensuring sufficient parking for this new downtown structure that would also
allow for good public access.
G. Opportunities and Threats should be further explored – will the structure built be the one that is
appropriate well into the future/its’ expected use? How will it mesh into our community/downtown
development and traffic growth? Does an opportunity exist to better use (increase the use of the Transit
Center) or take pressure off of other City offices (currently spread amongst several buildings in several
locations).
H. No fatal flaws discovered at the time of the TBLAM – (Note: economic factors will be further evaluated
post TBL with a thorough B/C or other appropriate economic analysis, unless this been done already by
the Team).
II. Conclusions Offered:
A. Additional effort for a thorough TBLAM is recommended, with basic economic factors considered
including design, space per employee and expected public, renovation costs of USC, etc. added as general
inputs since these were not expressed explicitly but may have been accounted for in the new Building
discussion history (see notes section of TBLAM).
B. Clarity should be offered in the AIS as to where TBL discussions occurred.
1. Make sure that the history of the team’s decision to go with a new structure and the importance of
such as well as renovating USC is explained here (see notes section of TBLAM).
III. Potential Key Indicators Suggested:
A. The main limitation expressed by the Building Team was that the City should not lose sight that the
current USC structure needs to be renovated with or without a new City building downtown.
B. Additional TBLAM effort would be useful – and can include ideas emanating from the Building Team
charrette in October if those ideas are not simply green-washing the existing plan.
1. Any new City structure will require a communication plan & public engagement plan.
2. Must determine how to sell the vision, but details of how the public will be better served will be
important.
C. Question for the Building Team – please return any feedback to the TBL Team.
1. Was this useful? Did this help?
2. What came from the discussion? How will you use this?
3. How could the TBL brainstorm be improved?
4. Would you like the TBL Team involved in any future TBLAMs for this project?
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: November 22, 2013
To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Ken Mannon, Director of Operation Services
Re: Work Session Summary – November 19, 2013
Two concept Master Plan diagrams #3 and #9 were presented to the Council showing how the
City could develop Blocks 32 and 42. The Council was supportive of conceptual diagram #9
with the Civic Space at a central location using both Blocks 32 and 42 with the future City
buildings around the perimeter. The new Utilities Customer Service Building was shown to be
located in the Southwest corner of Block 32 at the intersection of LaPorte and Howes Streets.
The City will need to vacate the buildings currently being used where the new Utility Customer
Service Building will be located and will move to the structure currently being used by the Bike
Library.
The timeline for the development is to begin design of the new Utility Customer Service
Building in January 2014, then start vacating the necessary buildings in first quarter of 2014. De-
construction of the buildings will then take place in second quarter of 2014. Construction of the
New Customer Service Building is to begin in the third quarter of 2014. The design process will
provide the opportunity for community input with neighborhood meetings at various stages.
Future buildings included in this plan are long-term because there is currently no funding in
place for any projects beyond the Utility Customer Service Building.
Utilities presented their expansion plan to build the new Customer Service Building on Block 32
consisting of 35,000 SF and renovate their existing 75,000 SF Utility Service Center at 700
Wood Street. Utilities is planning to fund this expansion by using $4.5 million previously
appropriated and then issuing bonds in the amount of $15.5 million for a total of $20 million.
$12 million is to be used for the new building and $8 million for the renovation work.
ATTACHMENT 10
DATE: November 19, 2013
STAFF: Ken Mannon,Operations Services Director
Mike Beckstead,Chief Financial Officer
Ken Mannon,Operations Services Director
Lance Smith,Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Wayne Sterler,Utilities Health Safety & Security
Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Master Plan for Blocks 32 & 42, Downtown Fort Collins and Utility Building Expansion Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is twofold:
1. Part A is intended to provide City Council with an update on the Master Plan for Blocks 32 and 42
and how the proposed new Utility Customer Service and Administration building fits into this plan.
2. Part B is intended to provide City Council with an update on the proposed new Utility Customer
Service and Administration Building and renovation of the existing Utility Service Center at 700
Wood Street.
Part A - Master Plan for Blocks 32 and 42
The City of Fort Collins is looking towards development of its downtown property to meet future building
capacity and improve efficiencies between departments. Most City buildings are at or near capacity, and
the City is looking at ways to use Blocks 32 and 42 and plan how the City of Fort Collins should function
as the area is developed over the next 15 -20 years and prepare for future growth for the next 50 plus
years. RNL Design leads the team which is looking at these properties, determining how the various
departments interact, and helping us develop a conceptual master plan.
The design and building project teams have developed two final design options presented here, along
with staff recommendation.
Part B - Utilities Building Update
A new Utilities Customer Service and Administration building is being proposed for construction beginning
in May 2014. This building would be located in Block 32 on Mason Street and would house the customer
service and senior management of the Fort Collins Utilities Service Area. Space initially unused by Utility
staff would be leased in this building to the City's Sustainability Services Area in the near term until it is
needed by Fort Collins Utilities.
In addition to the new building on Mason Street there are operational needs to renovate existing space at
700 Wood Street. Such a renovation would also improve the building’s security and energy efficiency.
Together, the construction of the new building and the renovation of the existing building are expected to
cost $20M. Currently, the Light & Power Fund has $4.5M in Reserves for this effort leaving a need for
$15.5M to be financed.
A revenue bond is recommended to finance this project. It is recommended that a single bond issuance
be made through the Light & Power Enterprise Fund.
1
Packet Pg. 3
ATTACHMENT 11
November 19, 2013 Page 2
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council support the conceptual design of Diagram # 9 for the master plan of Blocks 32
and 42?
2. Does the Council support locating the new Customer Service Building in the southwest corner of
Block 32 and moving forward with the proposed renovation of 700 Wood Street to create needed
space for the light & power crews and improve building performance and efficiencies?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Part A - Master Plan for Blocks 32 and 42
The City of Fort Collins has made purchases to acquire property on Block 32 following the 1996 Civic
Center Master Plan which can be found online at: <http://citynet.fcgov.com/opserv/files/Downtown>
CCMasterPlan.pdf. The first purchase on Block 32 was from Trillium Corporation in July of 1996 and that
purchase was for the east half of Block 32. The City continued acquisitions through December of 2008
when the City purchased the Haiston Oil site on the NW quarter of the block.
City Staff and the design team conducted a visioning session and developed the following guiding
principles for using both blocks to create a City of Fort Collins civic campus:
World Class Leadership: becomes a point of community pride in performance, innovation and
regenerative design that sets an example for the private sector in its reflection of Fort Collins’
character and culture.
Vibrant community spaces: contribute nature and ecology to the city while establishing places
for public engagement that promote social and individual health.
Resilient design: lasting quality that is climate adaptive, accommodates growth and flexibility,
and a universal community.
Intuitive Organization: support and activate site connectivity, externally and create a
collaborative environment, internally.
Enhance the civic heart: physical embodiment of the city’s mission and plan that meet
immediate needs; establish a vision that can be invested in and realized.
After many interviews, discussions and tours of various City departments to determine future building
needs, a three day charrette was conducted. Two design concepts were selected out of nine options
originally presented for development of Blocks 32 and 42.
The City of Fort Collins currently owns both Blocks 32 and 42.
The two final conceptual designs #3 and #9 are aligned with the guiding principles. Conceptual Design #9
is the staff’s recommendation for moving forward because it combines a strong urban design, a vibrant
community event space, best opportunity to incorporate buildings having historic significance and the best
future growth looking at the next 50-100 years.
The location of the new Utility Customer Service and Administration building will influence the final
building design. Design #9 has this building in the southwest corner of Block 32. Design #3 has this
building in the northwest corner of Block 32.-
Part B - Utilities Update
1
Packet Pg. 4
November 19, 2013 Page 3
The Utility Service Center at 700 Wood Street has grown over its lifetime through several additions to its
current 75,000 square foot capacity. These additions have been made as needed by each utility resulting
in a building that currently is one of the most energy in-efficient buildings owned by the City and which
lacks sufficient security. Light & Power crews have single-gender facilities inconsistent with the size and
makeup of the current workforce. To address this immediate need, the Light & Power Enterprise Fund
has appropriated $4.5M already. Together with the ongoing space needs of all of the utilities, these
issues led to the consideration of another addition and renovation of the existing building.
A 24,000 square foot addition was evaluated along with significant renovations of the existing structure.
The estimated cost of this addition and renovation was $15.5M. While such an addition would satisfy
short term needs and improve the energy efficiency of the building, long term space needs along with the
current age of the Utility Service Center and the location of it relative to where the City has grown over the
past few decades suggested that it may be better to build a new building downtown rather than expand
the existing building.
A new building downtown would also allow for the consolidation of the Customer Connections
Department into one office. Currently the Utilities Customer Connections department is located partially
in the Utility Service Center and partially at 117 North Mason in space being leased from the City.
Several challenges exist with the 117 North Mason facility as well as some re-development interest in the
property. Those challenges include insufficient parking along Mason for customers to readily access the
office, poor lighting, security and making costly tenant renovations to a building that will likely not exist
when re-development does occur.
As an alternative, a new Utilities Customer Service and Administration building is being proposed to be
located in Block 32 on Mason Street. This building would house the Customer Connections Department
and senior management of the Fort Collins Utilities Service Area. At 35,000 square feet, this building
would meet the long term space requirements of the Customer Connections and administrative functions
that would be relocated from both the Utility Service Center and 117 North Mason. The estimated cost of
this new building is $11.7M. Space initially unused by Utility staff would be leased in this building to the
City's Sustainability Services Area in the near term until it is needed by Fort Collins Utilities.
The new building on Mason Street would relieve some of the space needs at the Utility Service Center.
However, there remains an operational need to renovate existing space at 700 Wood Street. Such a
renovation would modify some existing space to meet the Light & Power crew needs as well as improve
the building’s security and energy efficiency. The existing HVAC system is at the end of its lifecycle and
will require significant investment in the next few years. Incorporating the HVAC investment into a more
comprehensive renovation of the entire building envelope will substantially improve the energy efficiency
of the building. Relocating the Customer Connections department downtown will make additional space
within the Service Center available for Light & Power field crews without requiring additional construction
at the Wood Street location. Renovations at the Service Center include new locker rooms for Light &
Power Crews and increased space for crew workstations which currently are approximately 9 square feet
per four person crew and additional facilities for operational and safety training. Security will be
enhanced to better protect property and personnel. The renovation is projected to cost $8.3M.
Together, the construction of the new building and the renovation of the existing building are expected to
cost $20M. Currently, the Light & Power Fund has $4.5M in Reserves for this effort leaving a need for
$15.5M to be financed.
A revenue bond is recommended to finance this project. It is recommended that a single bond issuance
be made through the Light & Power Enterprise Fund rather than separate issuances from each of the
utility Enterprise Funds. A presentation was made to the Council Finance Committee on the Block 32
Master Plan and the financing of this project on September 16, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
1
Packet Pg. 5
November 19, 2013 Page 4
1. #: Master Plan Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2. #: Triple Bottom Line Synthesis (PDF)
3. #: Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (PDF)
4. #: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
5. #: Utilities Building Triple Bottom Lline Synthesis (PDF)
6. #: Utilities Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Existing Conditions
D½ÙçÃ
,ÊóÝ^ã
DÝÊÄ^ã
ϮϭϱEDÝÊÄ
®ãù,½½
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
WÙ»^«ÊÖ
,®ÝãÊÄK®½
ϮϭϰE,ÊóÝ
ÊͲ
d«Ù®¥ã
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄÄø
Z½
½Ý
®»
>®ÙÙù
Packet Pg. 588
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
«ÙããWÙÊÝÝ
Packet Pg. 589
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
'箮ĦWٮĮֽÝ
World Class Leadership:ďĞĐŽŵĞƐĂƉŽŝŶƚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
ƉƌŝĚĞŝŶƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ͕ŝŶŶŽǀĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƟǀĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƚŚĂƚ
ƐĞƚƐĂŶĞdžĂŵƉůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƐĞĐƚŽƌŝŶŝƚƐƌĞŇĞĐƟŽŶŽĨ&Žƌƚ
ŽůůŝŶƐ͛ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚĐƵůƚƵƌĞ͘
+
Vibrant Community Spaces: ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞ
ĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐLJƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJǁŚŝůĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƉůĂĐĞƐĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐ
ĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐŽĐŝĂůĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
+
Resilient Design: ůĂƐƟŶŐƋƵĂůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚŝƐĐůŝŵĂƚĞĂĚĂƉƟǀĞ͕
ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƐŐƌŽǁƚŚ͕ŇĞdžŝďŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂŶĚĂƵŶŝǀĞƌƐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘
+
/ŶƚƵŝƟǀĞKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶ͗ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚĂĐƟǀĂƚĞƐŝƚĞ
ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚLJĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůůLJĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞĂĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟǀĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůLJ͘
+
ŶŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĞŝǀŝĐ,ĞĂƌƚ͗ƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůĞŵďŽĚŝŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ
ĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚŵĞĞƚƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞŶĞĞĚƐ͖ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂ
ǀŝƐŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĐĂŶďĞŝŶǀĞƐƚĞĚŝŶĂŶĚƌĞĂůŝnjĞĚ͘
+
Packet Pg. 590
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
E®ÄKÙ®¦®Ä½®¦ÙÃÝ
Diagram 1 Diagram 2 Scheme 4 Scheme 5
Diagram 8
Diagram 3
SELECTED
Diagram 6
SELECTED
Diagram 7
SELECTED
Diagram 9
SELECTED
Packet Pg. 591
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
^½ã®¦ÙÃÝ
Diagram 3 Diagram 9
Packet Pg. 592
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Diagram 9
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
Packet Pg. 593
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
WÙ»®Ä¦
ÄÙ㮽
dÙ ddddÙ d ÄÝÝÝ®®ããããã
®ãù,½½ Ä ãÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
tÝãt®Ä¦ Ýãt®Ä¦
ZÖçÙÖÊÝ
ʽ®ãù
,½½tÝã
&çãçÙ
ÖÙ»®Ä¦
ÝãÙçãçÙ
®ãùͬWÙ®òã
&çãçÙ
ò½ÊÖÃÄãã
®ãùͬWÙ®òã
&çãçÙ
ò½ÊÖÃÄãã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄãÙͬ
Ê
çã®ÊÄ
WÄÄù
&½ãÝ
:çÝã®
ÄãÙ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
/½½çÝãÙã®òW½Ä
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 594
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Community/Data Center
; džŝƐƟŶŐŽĸĐĞƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨŝƚLJ,ĂůůͲ
Ϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
Ops Service Building
; džŝƐƟŶŐƵŝůĚŝŶŐͲϮϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
City Hall - West Wing
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϮϱ͕ϳϱϬ^&Ϳ
ͻHR
ͻIT
ͻ&ŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ͻZŝƐŬDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
City Hall - Council Chambers
;ϰ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϲϴ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͻŝƚLJƩŽƌŶĞLJ
ͻŝƚLJůĞƌŬ
ͻŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ͻCPIO
City Hall - East Wing
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϮϱ͕ϳϱϬ^&Ϳ
ͻDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵƌƚ
ͻ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ
1
2
3
4
5
1
6
2
3
8
7
9
4
5
WƌŝǀĂƚĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
WÙʦÙÃͲWÙã͗箽®Ä¦ÝϭͲϱ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 595
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
tĞůůŶĞƐƐĞŶƚĞƌͬ ĐŽͲ ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ
;ϭ^ƚŽƌLJͲϮ͕ϱϬϬ^&Ϳ
hƟůŝƟĞƐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞůĚŐ
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
Structured Parking
;ϰĞĐŬƐĂďŽǀĞŐƌĂĚĞͲϰϬϬ^ƉĂĐĞƐͿ
ͻ>ĞǀĞůƐнϭͲϰ
ͲsŝƐŝƚŽƌͬ^ƚĂīWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;ϰϬϬ^ƉĂĐĞƐͿ
ͻ'ƌŽƵŶĚ>ĞǀĞů
ͲZĞƚĂŝů;ϭϭ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
Ͳ ĐŽͲŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ;ϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͲWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐKĸĐĞ;ϯ͕ϯϬϬ^&Ϳ
215 N. Mason Street
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ͳ džŝƐƟŶŐƵŝůĚͲ
ŝŶŐͿ
ͻƵŝůĚŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ƌǀĐ͘
;ϱϴ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͻ&ůĞdž^ƉĂĐĞ;ϭϯ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
7
6
8
9
1
6
2
3
8
7
9
4
5
WƌŝǀĂƚĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
WÙʦÙÃͲWÙã͗箽®Ä¦ÝϲͲϵ ®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 596
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
>ÄhÝ
ZĞƚĂŝů
'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
WƵďůŝĐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
KĸĐĞ
Ɖ Ɖ
Ɖ
WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 597
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Civic
Green
Civic
Green
Urban
Farm
Fleet
Parking
Courtyard Courtyard
Courtyard
Laporte Avenue
Pedestrian Improvement
WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ
to Downtown
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
ÊÄÖãç½KÖÄ^ÖW½Ä
EĂƟǀĞWůĂŶƟŶŐ
WĞƌŵĞĂďůĞ,ĂƌĚƐĐĂƉĞ
dƵƌĨ&ŝĞůĚ
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 598
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
PV
Geo-Exchange
PV
PV
EUI
25
EUI
15
EUI
45
EUI
20
EUI
25
EUI
1000
EUI
25
EUI
1
EUI
45
EUI
20
EUI
10
Energy Use:
ŶĞƌŐLJ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ͗
Mason Parking:
EĞƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ͗
ͲϮ͕ϴϵϲDtŚ
нϮ͕ϮϭϯDtŚ
ͲϲϴϮDtŚ
нϵϯϴDtŚ
+255 MWh
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
ÄÙ¦ùhÝÄ'ÄÙã®ÊÄ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
WŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐWĂŶĞůƐ;WsͿ
'ĞŽͲ džĐŚĂŶŐĞ
h/с ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 599
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Rain Garden
Porous Paving
Porous Paving
Living Machine
ĞƚĞŶƟŽŶ
Bio-Swale
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
^ãÊÙÃٮĦÄtãÙdÙãÃÄã^ùÝãà ®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 600
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
WÝãÙ®ÄDÊòÃÄã
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐĐĞƐƐ
/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶWĂƚŚƐ
^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬ
ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶŽŶŶĞĐƚŽƌ
DĂŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 601
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
WÙ»^«ÊÖ
,®ÝãÊÄK®½
®ãù,½½ ϮϭϰE͘,ÊóÝ
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
Phase 1 Plan
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚ ĐŽͲdŚƌŝŌ͕tĞůůŶĞƐƐ
ŶŶĞdž͕ĂŶĚZĞĂůĞĂůƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻZĞůŽĐĂƚĞŝŬĞ>ŝďƌĂƌLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻƵŝůĚϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&ƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻWƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ
ďĞƚǁĞĞŶƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚϮϭϰE͘,ŽǁĞƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻKƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞͬƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
dÃÖÊÙÙù
WÙ»®Ä¦
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
W«ÝϭͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥h㮽®ãùçÝãÊÃÙ^Ùò®ç®½®Ä¦ ®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 602
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
,®ÝãÊÄK®½
WÙ»^«ÊÖ
®ãù,½½ ϮϭϰE͘,ÊóÝ
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
Phase 2A Plan
ͻƵŝůĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚZĞƚĂŝůŽŶ
ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨůŽĐŬϯϮ
ͻKƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞͬƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ
'ĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚZĞƚĂŝů
ͻKƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞͬƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚϮϭϱE͘
DĂƐŽŶ
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥EóWÙ»®Ä¦^ãÙçãçÙ ®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 603
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
®ãù,½½
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
Phase 2B Plan
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϮϭϰ͘E͘,ŽǁĞƐĂŶĚ
WĂƌŬ^ŚŽƉďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ͻZĞͲĂůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ŽǁĞƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
ͻWƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ
ŶĞǁ,ŽǁĞƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚĐŽƵƉůĞƚ
,®ÝãÊÄK®½
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥EóWÙ»®Ä¦^ãÙçãçÙ ®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 604
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
®ãù,½½
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
tÝãt®Ä¦ Ýãt®Ä¦
ZÖçÙÖÊÝ
ʽ®ãù
,½½tÝã
Phase 2C Plan
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚWĂƌŬƐ^ŚŽƉƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻƵŝůĚŝƚLJ,ĂůůĂŶĚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ĂƐƚ
ĂŶĚtĞƐƚtŝŶŐƐ
ͻKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚWůĂnjĂ
/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚŝƚLJ,ĂůůĂŶĚ
ǁŝƚŚŝŶŝǀŝĐ'ƌĞĞŶ
ͻƵŝůĚtĞůůŶĞƐƐĞŶƚĞƌͬ ĐŽͲ
ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĐŽƵŶĐŝůĐŚĂŵďĞƌƐŝŶ
ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŝƚLJ,Ăůů͕ƌĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞǁĞƐƚ
ƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨĞdžŝƐƟŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨŽƌ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚͬŽƌĚĂƚĂĐĞŶƚĞƌƵƐĞ
,®ÝãÊÄK®½
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄãÙͬ
Ê
çã®ÊÄ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥Eó®ãù,½½ ®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 605
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
W«ÝϯͲ&çãçÙÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄͬò½ÊÖÃÄã
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
®ãù,½½
ZÖçÙÖÊÝ
ʽ®ãù
,½½tÝã
®ãùͬWÙ®òã
&çãçÙ
ò½ÊÖÃÄã
®ãùͬWÙ®òã
&çãçÙ
ò½ÊÖÃÄã
&çãçÙ
ÖÙ»®Ä¦
ÝãÙçãçÙ
Phase 3 Plan
ͻƵŝůĚĨƵƚƵƌĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
ͻƵŝůĚĨƵƚƵƌĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͘ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƐĞƐĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ;ŝƚLJͬƉƌŝǀĂƚĞͿ
ƚŽďĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶŵĂƌŬĞƚ
ĚĞŵĂŶĚĂƚƚŚĂƚƟŵĞ͘ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƵƐĞƐ
ĐĂŶďĞŵƵůƟĨĂŵŝůLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůŽƌ
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůͬŝƚLJĨƵŶĐƟŽŶŽĸĐĞƐ͘
ͻZĞůŽĐĂƚĞ,ĂŝƐƚŽŶKŝůKĸĐĞĂŶĚ
'ĂƌĂŐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ͻ KƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚWůĂnjĂ
/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚĨƵƚƵƌĞ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůŽƌ
ŽĸĐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
tÝãt®Ä¦ Ýãt®Ä¦
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄãÙͬ
Ê
çã®ÊÄ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϵ
Packet Pg. 606
Diagram 3
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
Packet Pg. 607
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
22215 2 N. NNN
DDDÝ D ÊÄ
WÙ»®Ä¦
ÄÙ㮽
WÄÄù
&½ãÝ
:çÝã®
ÄãÙ
dddddÙÄÝÝÝ® Ý®ãããããã
ÄãÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙ
®ãù,½½
ç½ çç ãç ãçÙ çÙ ç ½½½
ç® ç®®½® ½ ½½ Ħ Ħ¦¦¦ͬ ¦ͬͬͬ ¦
Wòòòò®½½ ®½ ®½½½ ½ ®ÊÄ ÊÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
tttt½ t½ tt ½Ä ½ÄÝÝ ÝÝ
ÄãÙͬ ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊͲ Ê
çã ããããããã®ÊÄ ®ÊÄ ÊÄ ÊÄÄÄÄ
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
/½½çÝãÙã®òW½Ä
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 608
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Cultural/Community Structure
;ϭ^ƚŽƌLJͲϭϯ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
hƟůŝƟĞƐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
tĞůůŶĞƐƐĞŶƚĞƌͬ ĐŽͲ ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ
;ϭ^ƚŽƌLJͲϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
City Hall - Public
;ϰ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϱϯ͕ϮϱϬ^&Ϳ
ͻDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵƌƚ
ͻŝƚLJƩŽƌŶĞLJ
ͻŝƚLJůĞƌŬ
ͻŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ͻ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ
Council Chambers
;ϭ^ƚŽƌLJͲϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
City Hall - Internal Services
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϱϮ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͻHR
ͻIT
ͻCPIO
ͻ&ŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ͻZŝƐŬDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
1
1
2
2
4
4
3
7
3
8
5 5
6
6
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
WÙʦÙÃͲWÙã͗箽®Ä¦ÝϭͲϲ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 609
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Structured Parking
;ϰĞĐŬƐĂďŽǀĞŐƌĂĚĞ͕ϭďĞůŽǁŐƌĂĚĞͲ
ϰϱϬ^ƉĂĐĞƐͿ
ͻ>ĞǀĞůƐнϭͲϰ
ͲsŝƐŝƚŽƌͬ^ƚĂīWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;ϰϬϬ^ƉĂĐĞƐͿ
ͻ'ƌŽƵŶĚ>ĞǀĞů
ͲsŝƐŝƚŽƌWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;ϱϬ^ƉĂĐĞƐͿ
ͲZĞƚĂŝů;ϭϭ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͲWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐKĸĐĞ;ϯ͕ϯϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͻ^ƵďͲ'ƌĂĚĞ>ĞǀĞů
Ͳ ĐŽͲŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚ͘;ϵ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
Ͳ^ĞĐƵƌĞ&ůĞĞƚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;ϲϬ^ƉĂĐĞƐͿ
215 N. Mason Street
;ϯ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐͲϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ͳ džŝƐƟŶŐƵŝůĚŝŶŐͿ
ͻƵŝůĚŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ƌǀĐ͘
;ϱϴ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
ͻKW^^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ϭϯ͕ϬϬϬ^&Ϳ
1
2
4
7
3
7
8
8
5
6
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
WÙʦÙÃͲWÙã͗箽®Ä¦ÝϳͲϴ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 610
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
>ÄhÝ
WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
ZĞƚĂŝů
'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
WƵďůŝĐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
Ɖ
Ɖ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 611
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Focal Point
Structure
Mid-Block
Crossing
EĂƟǀĞ
Garden
Laporte Avenue
Pedestrian Improvement
WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ
to Downtown
Internal
Civic Greenway
Green
Ice Rink
Urban
Farm
Courtyard
Courtyard
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
ÊÄÖãç½KÖÄ^ÖW½Ä
EĂƟǀĞWůĂŶƟŶŐ
WĞƌŵĞĂďůĞ,ĂƌĚƐĐĂƉĞ
dƵƌĨ&ŝĞůĚ
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 612
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
PV
Geo-Exchange
PV
EUI
20
EUI
1
EUI
45
EUI
20
EUI
15
EUI
45
EUI
10
EUI
25
EUI
1000
Energy Use:
ŶĞƌŐLJ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ͗
Mason Parking:
EĞƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ͗
Ͳϯ͕ϭϳϱDtŚ
нϮ͕ϰϳϲDtŚ
ͲϲϵϵDtŚ
нϵϯϴDtŚ
+239 MWh
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
ÄÙ¦ùhÝÄ'ÄÙã®ÊÄ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
WŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐWĂŶĞůƐ;WsͿ
'ĞŽͲ džĐŚĂŶŐĞ
h/с ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 613
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Rain Garden
Porous Paving
Porous Paving
Living Machine
Porous Plaza
ĞƚĞŶƟŽŶ
Bio-Swale
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
^ãÊÙÃٮĦÄtãÙdÙãÃÄã^ùÝãÃ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 614
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
WÝãÙ®ÄDÊòÃÄã
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐĐĞƐƐ
/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶWĂƚŚƐ
^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬ
ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶŽŶŶĞĐƚŽƌ
DĂŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 615
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦ dÃÖÊÙÙù
ÖÙ»®Ä¦¥ÊÙ
^
Phase 1 Plan
ͻZĞůŽĐĂƚĞ,ĂŝƐƚŽŶKŝů'ĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚ
ŽĸĐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ͻƵŝůĚϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&ƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂƌŽƵŶĚƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƟŵŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƐƉĂĐĞŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ
ĂŶĚĞĂƐƚŽĨůŽĐŬϯϮĐĂŶďĞƵƟůŝnjĞĚ
ĨŽƌƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐǀŝƐŝƚŽƌ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ
WÙ»^«ÊÖ
ϮϭϰE͘,ÊóÝ
Ê
d«Ù®¥ã
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄÄø
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
®ãù,½½
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
Z½
½Ý
®»
>®ÙÙù
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
W«ÝϭͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥h㮽®ãùçÝãÊÃÙ^Ùò®ç®½®Ä¦
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 616
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
Phase 2A Plan
ͻƵŝůĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚZĞƚĂŝůŽŶ
ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨůŽĐŬϯϮ
ͻKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ
ŐĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
WÙ»^«ÊÖ
Ê
d«Ù®¥ã
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄÄø
®ãù,½½
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
Z½
½Ý
®»
>®ÙÙù
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
ϮϭϰE͘,ÊóÝ
WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥EóWÙ»®Ä¦^ãÙçãçÙ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 617
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Phase 2B Plan
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚ ĐŽͲdŚƌŝŌ͕tĞůůŶĞƐƐ
ŶŶĞdž͕Ϯϭϰ͘E͘,ŽǁĞƐ͕ĂŶĚZĞĂů
ĞĂůƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ͻZĞůŽĐĂƚĞͬZĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŝŬĞ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ
ͻƵŝůĚŝƚLJ,ĂůůƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂƌŽƵŶĚŝƚLJ,Ăůů
WÙ»^«ÊÖ
®ãù,½½
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
®ãù,½½
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥Eó®ãù,½½
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 618
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Phase 2C Plan
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚWĂƌŬƐ^ŚŽƉƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ͻŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚWůĂnjĂ
/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ͻƵŝůĚtĞůůŶĞƐƐĞŶƚĞƌͬ ĐŽͲ
ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
®ãù,½½
^Ê®½Ι
^çÝã®Ä͘
½¦
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄãÙͬ
Ê
çã®ÊÄ
®ãù,½½
KÖÝ^Ùò®Ý
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥t½½ÄÝÝÄãÙͬ ÊͲ çã®ÊÄ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 619
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
®ãù,½½
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
ç½ãçÙ½
箽®Ä¦
Wò®½½®ÊÄ
t½½ÄÝÝ
ÄãÙͬ
Ê
çã®ÊÄ
Phase 2D Plan
ͻĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚ^ŽĐŝĂů^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ͕
KůĚŝƚLJ,Ăůů͕ĂŶĚKƉƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐͲKƉƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĐŽƵůĚďĞ
ƌĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĚ
ͻŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚ ǀĞŶƚ
^ƉĂĐĞ
ͻƵŝůĚƵůƚƵƌĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐͬWĂǀŝůůŝŽŶ
ͻŽŵƉůĞƚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂůŵ
ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŽŶůŽĐŬϰϮ
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
W«ÝϮͲÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄÊ¥Wò®½½®ÊÄ
Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 620
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Phase 3 Plan
ͻ džƉĂŶĚƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ǀŝĂĂŶĂĚĚĞĚƐŽƵƚŚǁŝŶŐ
ͻĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůĐĂŶ
ŽĐĐƵƌŽǀĞƌƚŚĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
ϮϭϱE͘
DÝÊÄ
W«ÝϯͲ&çãçÙ'ÙÊóã«WÊÝÝ®®½®ã®Ý
WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐWŚĂƐĞ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞWƵďůŝĐ
ZĞĂůŵ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ
ƵƌƌĞŶƚWŚĂƐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
®ãù,½½
WÙ»®Ä¦
'Ù¦н
Z㮽
ç½ãçÙ½
箽®Ä¦
Wò®½½®ÊÄ
çÝãÊÃÙ^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦ øÖÄÝ®ÊÄ
çÝãÊÃÙ
^Ùò®
箽®Ä¦
&çãçÙ
øÖÄÝ®ÊÄ
&çãçÙ
øÖÄÝ®ÊÄ
>ÖÊÙãòÄç
DÖ½^ãÙã
DÝÊÄ^ãÙã
,ÊóÝ^ãÙã
Block 32/42 - Civic Center
Vision Plan Ϭ͛ ϭϮϱ͛ ϮϱϬ͛ ϱϬϬ͛
®¦ÙÃϯ
Packet Pg. 621
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
WƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĐŽƐƚ
ĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƐĞƚǁŽŽƉƟŽŶƐŝĨĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƐƐŚŽǁŶ͘
/ƐŽƵŶĐŝůƐƵƉƉŽƌƟǀĞŽĨŵŽǀŝŶŐĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶŽĨĚŝĂŐƌĂŵηϵ͍
/ƐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůƐƵƉƉŽƌƟǀĞŽĨŵŽǀŝŶŐĨŽƌǁĂƌĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǁƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐďĞŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ
ƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨůŽĐŬϯϮ͍
Block 32 - Civic Center
Vision Plan
+
+
+
Packet Pg. 622
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS
Derived from a TBLAM Brainstorm on
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OF BLOCKS 32 AND 42
In Collaboration with the BUILDING TEAM and VARIOUS CITY STAFF
Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line information from a TBLAM, and use that information to
offer recommendations on key indicators and suggested action items for the proposed new
development of Blocks 32 and 42 between Mason + Meldrum and LaPorte + Maple.
I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM):
A. The TBLAM is generally well balanced, with a good variety of strengths and limitations identified for
both options A and B.
B. Many considerations crossed into many columns, and rows.
1. Crossing columns indicates excellent depth of discussion and debate.
2. Crossing of rows indicates potential for conflicting values.
C. More discussion after this or additional TBLAM exercise(s) will provide more granular detailed data for
economic strengths and limitations. However,
1. Option B secures much needed Civic space for the many events currently held in downtown Fort
Collins.
2. Option B better provides for future growth for the next 50 years.
D. The Social, Environmental, and Economic component of the TBLAM was discussed in detail during this
analysis, for both City staff and for the public user, and both options have very positive impact provided
Option A does not involve selling off Block 42.
E. One limitation included ensuring sufficient parking for the new downtown Customer Service structure
that would also allow for good public access until the parking garage is completed in phase 2.
F. Opportunities and Threats should be further explored – will the structures built be ones of size appropriate
well into the future/its’ expected use? How will it mesh into our community/downtown development and
traffic growth? Does an opportunity exist to better use (increase the use of the Transit Center) or take
pressure off of other City offices (currently spread amongst several buildings in several locations).
G. No fatal flaws discovered at the time of the TBLAM – (Note: economic factors will be further evaluated
post TBL with a thorough other appropriate economic analysis).
II. Conclusions Offered:
A. Additional effort for a thorough TBLAM is recommended, with basic economic factors considered
including design, space per employee and expected public, renovation costs of the building to be re-
purposed, etc.
B. Clarity should be offered in the AIS as to the two options being presented and the recommended or
preferred Design #9.
III. Potential Key Indicators Suggested:
A. The main limitation expressed by the Building Team was that the City should look to develop Blocks 32
and 42 using high performing buildings and systems with the need for having proper building orientation.
B. Additional TBLAM effort would be useful – and can include ideas emanating from the City’s conceptual
review in November.
1. Any new City structure will require a communication plan & public engagement plan.
2. Must determine how to sell the vision and details of how the public will be better served will be
important.
3. Will need to determine how to handle the building located on Blocks 32 and 42 have historic
significance.
1.b
Packet Pg. 42
#1.b: Triple Bottom Line Synthesis (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
Form Completed Oct 28, 2013
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM)
Project or Decision: Blocks 32 & 42 – Master Plan Evaluated by: Utilities Building
Team & City Staff
Social
Environmental Economic
Workforce/FLEX Community
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
More secure during the day.
Provides for future growth of City departments for
the next 50 years with additional space for future
buildings.
Both designs:
Provides all buildings in one central location. Easy
access for employees.
Provides good interaction between City
departments for collaboration.
Good access between new building Downtown
and 700 Wood St.
Provides improved wellness programs with open
space.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Ties in well with the current urban development so it
walks the talk of the City for development.
Howes remains as a through street for the public
use.
Jewel of the community as genuine civic park of
sufficient scale to meet Community needs in
downtown Fort Collins.
Giving back to the citizens a public square/civic
space. Place for community.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Provides a secure place for the public when using
the Civic Center area with the buildings surrounding
the area.
Provides a tie between the CSU oval and the
relationship the City has with the University.
Provides a buffer to the residential neighborhood
from the Civic space.
Both designs:
Have a large dedicated open space for Civic events.
Provides all City Customer Services in a central
location for one stop shopping.
Extends from the existing diagonal walkway through
the existing civic park.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Higher density minimizes the impact with smaller
development footprint and maximizes the open space.
Buildings are on smaller footprint which results in less
building surface area.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
This design allows for the best sustainable practices to be
implemented.
Both designs:
Potential site for geo-thermal systems which can serve the
entire block.
Form Completed Oct 28, 2013
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Lack of expandable space and departmental
growth with current design.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Building users and customers will have Howes
street to cross when going between the various
buildings.
Both designs:
Lack of parking for City employees, until parking
garage is constructed.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Connection with residential neighborhood with the
large civic space and noise.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Splitting of Howes street will create some concerns
for the public with having to cross the street for
access to the various buildings.
Both designs:
Unsure of how much use the Civic space will see
from the public.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Geo-thermal systems would need to be placed under new
structures unless there is commitment to maintain Civic
space for this use.
More challenging to design the east/west building
orientations.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Having Howes street go through the development creates
car centric environment.
Installation of the eco water system for the entire
development with the street running through the
development.
Both designs:
Must deal with the existing detention pond in NE corner of
development.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Challenge to get building efficiency if east/west orientation is
not maintained.
Ability to secure and maintain boundaries on all four sides of
the Civic space for events.
Future growth of City departments for the next 50 years does
not provide for future buildings.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Losing potential lease for FoCo on Block 32 (Depends on
timeline for phase 2).
Both designs:
Lose Eco-thrift as block is developed.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Works for both designs:
Create relationships across the various building
departments.
Potential to provide City employee functions
(picnic) locally so employees would be able to
come and go as available.
OPPORTUNITIES:
1
Utilities Facility Upgrade
Nov 19, 2013
1.d
Packet Pg. 45
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
2
1.d
Packet Pg. 46
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
3
117 N Mason – Customer Service Center (CSC)
• Parking – Challenging for customers to find adequate parking on Mason
• Space Design – old building with poor lighting, security and layout
• Opportunity for Development – interest in West Mountain Ave
Wood Street
• Energy Efficiency:
• One of the City’s most energy in-efficient buildings
• HVAC, windows, skylights, external sealing - requires significant upgrades
• Has not meet fundamental space needs for many years:
• Operations & Crew space limited, poor condition, single gender capacity
• Utilities requires additional space – estimate current need of 24K sq ft
• Security:
• Increasing security requirements post 9/11 difficult to meet with public access
to Wood St building
• Long Term – ideal to have operations center more centrally located vs. on the
north end
Challenges with Existing Utilities Building
1.d
Packet Pg. 47
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
4
• Leave Customer Service as is at 117 N Mason
• Build an additional 24k square feet of space at Wood St.
• Renovate the majority of the existing Wood St.
• Upgrade mechanicals, energy efficiency, and crew facilities
• Cost Estimate – Total $15.5M:
• Wood St. Renovation - $7.5M
• New Space - $8M
• Given security, 117 N Mason issues and long term view of Wood St.
Question was raised about the possibility of a new building downtown as
more cost effective and providing better service to the community
Original Proposal
1.d
Packet Pg. 48
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
5
Community Benefits of Downtown Utilities Building
• New downtown building would house:
• Utility executive staff – close together and close to City hall
• Customer Service – easier public access, better security
• Customer Connection – public access to various programs
• Utility Development Review – improved public access, close to 281 N. College
• Services remaining at 700 Wood St
• All Utility crews, Health & Safety, Water Resources
• IT, Regulatory, Finance
• Light & Power engineering & controls
• Public one-stop shopping of City services
• Clerks office, municipal court, utilities, parking, PDT all within 2 blocks
• Create an attractive municipal campus over time
• Municipal campus connected to Justice Center & County building
1.d
Packet Pg. 49
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
6
Long Term Utilities Space Needs
• Current Utilities space & staff Sq Ft. Staff
• 117 N Mason 8,000 35
• 700 Wood St – moving 70
• 700 Wood St – remaining 75,000 200
• New Building - current
• 700 Wood St – remaining 75,000 200
• New Building – Utilities staff 23,000 105
• New Building – Sustainability 12,000 35
• New Building – 25 years out
• 700 Wood St – remaining* 75,000 235
• New Building Utilities staff 35,000 140
• Sustainability – move to new location 0 0
*or relocated to more central location
1.d
Packet Pg. 50
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
7
Anticipated Project Scope & Cost
• Remodel 700 Wood St - $8M cost
• Energy efficiency upgrades – mechanical, skylights, windows, building envelope
• Renovate interior to house Light and Power crew and improve work processes
• General office upgrades to approximately 65,000 square feet - small amount of
shared space for visiting utility staff
• Security enhancements – Security fence around employees parking, guard post
at entrance
• New Building - $12M cost
• 35,000 square feet of space in 3 stories – NW corner or SW corner of block 32
• Work stations size based on current cube and fixed wall office standards
• Small amount of flex space for utility staff
• Utility customer service/billing – account set up, bill pay, and closing
• Development review, public meeting space, etc.
• Total Project Cost - $20M
1.d
Packet Pg. 51
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
8
Financial Implications of a New Downtown Building
• Project Funding ($ millions):
• Existing budget within L&P $ 4.5
• Revenue Bond issued by L&P 15.5
• Total Funding Requirement $20.0
• Annual Debt Cost $1.3M over 20 years*: Debt Service
• L&P $650,000
• Water 325,000
• Waste Water 162,000
• Storm Water 162,000
• Sustainability Rent* 170,000
* Internal MOU for payment terms between Utilities and Sustainability Services
• Facility Operating Costs Current New/Renovated
• 117 N Mason St $86,200 $ 0
• 700 Wood St 336,700 $259,200
• Sustainability 28,800 0
• New Building – Utilities/Sustainability 0 $113,200
$451,700 $372,400
1.d
Packet Pg. 52
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
9
Financial Comparison
• Remodel Wood St and new 24,000 sq ft building addition
• $15.5M initial capital investment + $1.5M in 5-7 years – Water Utilities
• $450K annual operating expense
• NPV = $24.3M
• Remodel 700 Wood St and New Building downtown on Block 32
• $20M capital investment
• $370K annual operating expense
• NPV = $26.3M
• Other Considerations
• Long-term, may be desirable to move operations to a more central location
• If relocation is an option, a new 24k sq ft addition at 700 Wood St. is not cost
effective in our long range planning
• Long-term, 700 Wood St property may be more valuable with other uses
• A Downtown building provides long-term central facility for external utility
customer services.
• While a rate increase is not specifically requested to support the associated
debt, it is acknowledged that without additional debt, a future rate change would
be slightly reduced
1.d
Packet Pg. 53
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
10
Estimated Time Line
• Q4 2013 Council Work Session Review
• Q4 2013 Energy & Water Advisory Board Review
• Q2 2014 Design Complete / Notification to Major Customers
• Q2 2014 Electric Enterprise Board (Council) Debt Authorization
• Q2 2014 Debt Closing / Appropriation of Bond Proceeds
• Q3 2014 Construction Begins
• Q3 2015 Construction Complete
1.d
Packet Pg. 54
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
11
Council Consideration
• Is Council supportive of Utilities moving forward with a revenue
bond offer to support the design, build and remodel efforts?
1.d
Packet Pg. 55
#1.d: Utilities Building Powerpoint presentation (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS
Derived from a TBLAM Brainstorm on
DOWNTOWN CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING AND
RENOVATED UTILITY SERVICE CENTER
In Collaboration with the BUILDING TEAM
Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line information from a TBLAM, and use that information to
offer recommendations on key indicators and suggested action items for the proposed new
City Building to be located near Mason + LaPorte
I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM):
A. The TBLAM effort so far (performed late in the project team’s discussions of this project) was generally
well balanced, with a good variety of strengths and limitations identified.
B. The TBLAM exercise placed future opportunities in with strengths and future threats into limitations.
C. Many considerations crossed into many columns, and rows.
1. Crossing columns indicates excellent depth of discussion and debate.
2. Crossing of rows indicates potential for conflicting values.
D. More discussion after this or additional TBLAM exercise(s) will provide more granular detailed data for
Economic strengths and limitations. However,
1. New building offers much needed space as well as centralization of City Utility Customer services.
2. Made very clear during the TBLAM effort is the inefficiency and limited space offered by the current
USC buildings; urgency expressed not to lose track of the need to renovate this facility.
E. The Social component of the TBLAM was exceptionally vigorous during this analysis, for both City staff
and for the public user, and outweighed either the Environmental or Economic components of TBL.
F. One limitation included ensuring sufficient parking for this new downtown structure that would also
allow for good public access.
G. Opportunities and Threats should be further explored – will the structure built be the one that is
appropriate well into the future/its’ expected use? How will it mesh into our community/downtown
development and traffic growth? Does an opportunity exist to better use (increase the use of the Transit
Center) or take pressure off of other City offices (currently spread amongst several buildings in several
locations).
H. No fatal flaws discovered at the time of the TBLAM – (Note: economic factors will be further evaluated
post TBL with a thorough B/C or other appropriate economic analysis, unless this been done already by
the Team).
II. Conclusions Offered:
A. Additional effort for a thorough TBLAM is recommended, with basic economic factors considered
including design, space per employee and expected public, renovation costs of USC, etc. added as general
inputs since these were not expressed explicitly but may have been accounted for in the new Building
discussion history (see notes section of TBLAM).
B. Clarity should be offered in the AIS as to where TBL discussions occurred.
1. Make sure that the history of the team’s decision to go with a new structure and the importance of
such as well as renovating USC is explained here (see notes section of TBLAM).
III. Potential Key Indicators Suggested:
A. The main limitation expressed by the Building Team was that the City should not lose sight that the
current USC structure needs to be renovated with or without a new City building downtown.
B. Additional TBLAM effort would be useful – and can include ideas emanating from the Building Team
charrette in October if those ideas are not simply green-washing the existing plan.
1. Any new City structure will require a communication plan & public engagement plan.
2. Must determine how to sell the vision, but details of how the public will be better served will be
important.
C. Question for the Building Team – please return any feedback to the TBL Team.
1. Was this useful? Did this help?
2. What came from the discussion? How will you use this?
3. How could the TBL brainstorm be improved?
4. Would you like the TBL Team involved in any future TBLAMs for this project?
1.e
Packet Pg. 56
#1.e: Utilities Building Triple Bottom Lline Synthesis (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
Form Drafted: August 15, 2012 This form is based on research by the City of Olympia and Evergreen State College
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM)
Project or Decision: New Building Master Plan near Mason + LaPorte –
seeking approval for building and funding plan Evaluated by:
Building Team
& TBL Team, 9-9-13
Social Environmental Economic
STRENGTHS:
Customer Service Building (CSB)
o New building provides more space for an already
cramped workforce
o Combines customer service functions of the Utility to one
location near other customer service units; creates a 1-
stop shop / campus
o Easier to manage security with visitors, contractors and
vendors in one building
o Supports City Management desire to increase
collaboration potential among customer service providers
o Cogeneration with FortZED; allows Utility to become an
engaged neighbor & help support the FortZED ideal
o Frees up 3 other buildings so services can be optimized
by proximity, allowing customers to more efficiently move
between departments
o Centralizes development review functions as a 1-stop
shop between different departments
Utility Service Center (USC)
o Will give crew members adequate room to operate
o Employee comfort inside USC building can improve
morale and efficiency / productivity
Both CSB and USC
o Utilities will fund project without a rate increase
o Purchasing RR spur between new building and USC
provides a walkable path between structures; encourages
employee wellness
STRENGTHS:
Customer Service Building (CSB)
o Construction of new building can be more efficient
than a USC renovation with LEED standards and
others
o Will be located near FortZED; allows Utility to become
a responsible neighbor
o Located near the Transit Center and along the Mason
MAX
o Parking limitations encourage alternative forms of
transportation
Utility Service Center (USC)
o Renovation of USC will reduce overall environmental
footprint through energy-efficiency
o USC is one of the least-efficient buildings in the City;
needs renovation
Both CSB and USC
o Utilizes space the City already owns; reusing sites
o New geothermal opportunities are available
o Purchasing RR spur between new building and USC
provides a walkable path between structures;
encourages employee wellness
STRENGTHS:
Customer Service Building (CSB)
Utility Service Center (USC)
o Renovation of USC will save money by creating
Form Drafted: August 15, 2012 This form is based on research by the City of Olympia and Evergreen State College
o Future Threat; if we do not create crew space, we will
have lost the original vision for the effort
building we will need?
o Future Threat; Do not want to lose commitment
to renovating the USC as part of the master
plan
o Future Threat; if we do not create crew space,
we will have lost the original vision for the effort
NOTES: The exercise documented above was completed September 9, 2013, with intent to capture discussions that have occurred over an extended period of time. It is
important to note that these projects, as currently envisioned, have evolved extensively over the last twelve months. This note describes key steps in that history:
The Light and Power crew building (Building C at 700 Wood Street) has been identified as deficient in meeting the needs of staff for many years. An addition to the
service center to address crew needs AND limited office space was partially through a design process in December 2012. Through an informal TBLAM process, it was
recognized that adding “another” piece to the USC would likely exacerbate building performance issues because it was not well integrated into the building form, layout or
mechanical systems.
The building team subsequently began to look at options to instead build a stand-alone new building which would accomplish the goals of improving office and crew
spaces. In discussions with senior management, the next logical step was to ask the question, “if we are going to build a new building, where should it be located?”
Answering this question led to looking at a number of City owned sites in the downtown area.
1.f
Packet Pg. 58
#1.f: Utilities Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
1
Utilities Facility Upgrade
October 7, 2014
ATTACHMENT 12
2
700 Wood Street
• Energy Efficiency:
• One of the City’s least energy efficient buildings
• HVAC, windows, skylights, external sealing - requires significant upgrades
• Has not met space needs for many years:
• Operations & Crew space limited, poor condition, inadequate
• 24k square feet of additional office space needed
• Security:
• Increasing security requirements post 9/11 difficult to meet with public access
to Wood St building
117 N Mason – Customer Service Center (CSC)
• Intended as an Interim Location
• Poor Customer Experience - inadequate parking
• Space Design – old building with poor lighting, security and layout
Why is This a Priority
Facilities Do Not Meet the Current Needs of the Utility Group
3
Aging Mechanical Equipment at USC
4
• Significant renovation to Wood St.
• Upgrade mechanicals, energy efficiency, and crew facilities
• Build an additional 24k square feet of space at Wood St.
• Customer Service continues interim Mason St. location
• Initial Cost Estimate – Total $15.5M:
• Wood St. Renovation - $7.5M
• New Space at Wood St. - 8.0M
2013 Original Proposal
Spending $15.5M at Wood Street is Not the Optimal Solution….
Question led to an Assessment of a New Building Downtown
5
Current Project Scope & Cost
• Renovation of Wood St - $9.3M cost
• Energy efficiency upgrades – mechanical, skylights, windows, building envelope
• Renovate interior to house Light and Power crew and improve work processes
• Security improvements to building entrance
• New Building - $14.1M cost
• 37,500 square feet of space in 3 stories – supports future growth
• Open office design
• Consolidates customer facing activities in a single location
• LEED Gold certification – PV system on Roof for near Net Zero building
• 6,000 square feet of space initially used by Sustainability Services
• Total Project Cost - $23.4M
Better Value for the Rate Payers and Community
6
Schematic Design Updated June 2014 (37,500 SF)
View Looking from Corner of LaPorte and Mason
7
Community Benefits of the Project
• New downtown Utility building:
• Customer Service – easier public access, better security
• Customer Connection – public access to various programs
• Proximity to other City services
• Public one-stop shopping of City services
• Single location for all Utility customer service contacts
• Clerks office, municipal court, utilities, parking, PDT all within 2 blocks
• Create an attractive municipal campus over time – long term plan
• High performance, energy efficient building
• Significant improvements at Wood St.
• Energy efficiency & crew space requirements
• Improves security and safety concerns at the Woods St. operations
center
Better Long-Term Value for the Community….
Best Long-Term Solution for Utility Enterprise
8
New Downtown Civic Center Master Plan
9
Other Considerations
• Building Capital Project vs. Other Infrastructure Projects
• Current facilities do not meet basic needs or energy goals
• Facility improvements have been a part of capital planning over time
• All Utility capital projects will occur as planned
• The Question – which projects are funded by cash and which are funded by debt
• Plant Investment Fee Revenue (PIF) Cannot be Used to Fund Building
• Very little of current cash & investments is from PIF revenue (less than $8M)
• Historically, cash reserves have been used to support facility expansion
• Current cash & investments are available to support construction
• Rate & Future Capital Implications:
• Future rate increase will occur with or without this project
• Capital Improvements will occur as planned using revenue, cash or future borrowing
• Future large capital projects better suited to support debt offering if needed
Facility Improvements are a Part of Utilities Capital Needs…..
Question - Funding with Cash or Debt
10
Financials
• Project Funding ($ millions):
• Existing budget within L&P $ 4.5
• Additional Appropriation Needed 18.9
• Total Funding Requirement $23.4
• Funding Alternatives
• Debt Service - $18.9M Bond with approximately $1.4M payments for 20 years
• $28.4M debt service payments over 20 years + transaction costs
• Payments shared across 4 utilities
• Doable but complicated transaction with cross guarantees & 4 entities
• Less attractive bond to investors than typical utility revenue bonds
• Cash Reserves – use available cash within each Utility
• Consistent with historical funding source
• Consistent with City Debt Philosophy – “pay as you go”
• Future large utility projects are more attractive debt candidates
• All financial policy requirements are maintained or exceeded
Staff Recommends Moving Forward with the Project
Funded using Available Cash
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES PROJECT FUNDING IN THE LIGHT AND
POWER, WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE FUNDS, AND
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CULTURAL
SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM,
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN
BLOCK 32 ON LAPORTE AVENUE AND A RENOVATION OF THE UTILITIES SERVICE
CENTER AT 700 WOOD STREET
WHEREAS, the Utility Service Center (USC) at 700 Wood Street has grown over its
lifetime through seven major additions to its current 108,000 square foot capacity, resulting in an
energy inefficient building that lacks sufficient security; and
WHEREAS, a new 37,500 square foot Utilities Administration Building (UAB), to be
located in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue downtown, has been proposed to house the entire
Customer Connections Department and some senior management of Fort Collins Utilities,
satisfying the long term space requirements of the Customer Connections Department and
administrative functions to be relocated from the Utility Service Center and space currently
leased by Fort Collins Utilities from the City’s General Fund at 117 North Mason; and
WHEREAS, space initially unused by Utility staff in the UAB would also be leased to
the City’s Sustainability Services Area until it is needed by Fort Collins Utilities; and
WHEREAS, there remain operational needs for Utilities that would best be met by also
renovating the existing space at the USC, including modification of existing space to meet the
Light & Power crew needs, improving the building’s security and energy efficiency, and
replacing the current HVAC system, which is at the end of its life and its replacement will
substantially improve the energy efficiency of the building; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the construction of the new UAB is $14,100,000; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the renovation of the USC is $9,311,000, which includes
$4,500,000 previously appropriated in the 2011-2012 budget from Light & Power reserves to
address growth and space needs of the Electric Utility and $45,000 that was transferred to the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Place (APP) projects; and
WHEREAS, of the total remaining $18,911,000 appropriation, $189,111 represents the
additional appropriation for the two projects that must be transferred into the Cultural Services
and Facilities Fund for the APP projects from the four utility funds; $41,604 (22%) of which will
be transferred to the Cultural Services Fund for reserve for the maintenance of the artwork and
operations of the APP program; and
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof
from one fund (project) to another fund (project), provided that the purpose for which the
transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged.
WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the Light &
Power Fund $7,205,500, the Water Fund $5,852,750, the Wastewater Fund $2,926,375, and the
Storm Drainage Fund $2,926,375 for a total amount of $18,911,000 to be used for the
construction of a new Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue, a
renovation of the Utilities Service Center at 700 Wood Street, and the required funding for Art in
Public Places.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Light & Power Fund the sum of $7,205,500 as follows:
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$7,133,445
Art in Public Places Project 72,055
TOTAL $7,205,500
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Water Fund the sum of $5,852,750 as follows:
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$5,794,222
Art in Public Places Project 58,528
TOTAL $5,852,750
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Wastewater Fund the sum of $2,926,375 as follows:
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$2,897,111
Art in Public Places Project 29,264
TOTAL $2,926,375
Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Storm Drainage Fund the sum of $2,926,375 as follows:
- 3 -
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$2,897,111
Art in Public Places Project 29,264
TOTAL $2,926,375
Section 5. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FORTY-ONE THOUSAND,
SIX HUNDRED AND FOUR DOLLARS ($41,604) is authorized for transfer in the Art in
Public Places Projects from the Light & Power, Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Funds to
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places
Program Maintenance and Operations and transferred as follows:
Light & Power $15,852
Water 12,876
Wastewater 6,438
Storm Drainage 6,438
TOTAL $41,604
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of October, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of October, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
a more energy-efficient building
o Employee comfort inside building can improve
morale and efficiency / productivity
Both CSB and USC
o Utilizes space the City already owns
o Frees up 3 other buildings for lease, sale or
redevelopment
o New geothermal opportunities save HVAC
costs
o Utilities can fund project without a rate increase
LIMITATIONS:
Both CSB and USC
o May split collaboration opportunities when finance group
and crews are removed from a single building
o Further factures the Utility across town further than we
are today
o Public perception of use of funds for employee building
can be detrimental
o Parking limitations for CSB downtown
o Future Threat; plan well enough or is building obsolete
when it opens? Is this enough space to provide a
functional building?
LIMITATIONS:
Both CSB and USC
o New construction will have an immediate impact on air
and water quality, and will utilize fossil fuel resources
at a higher short-term rate
o Limited parking downtown (CSB) forces people to use
more fossil fuels while searching for parking
o Future Threat; Do not want to lose commitment to
renovating the USC as part of the master plan
LIMITATIONS:
Both CSB and USC
o Larger building than originally planned costs
more in new construction
o Public perception of use of funds for employee
building can be detrimental
o Charge to build an efficient and responsible
building comes with a higher price
o Parking – immediate needs downtown will be a
challenge
o Future Threat; plan well enough or is building
obsolete when it opens? Can we afford the
1.f
Packet Pg. 57
#1.f: Utilities Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Potential to bring in some new larger events with
having approximately 6 acres available.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
New street layout could provide three separate
areas for multiple venues to use Civic space.
Works for both designs:
Opportunity for the public and City to engage on
more frequent basis.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Could upsize the relocated stormwater pipe and use it as a
water retention system.
Works for both designs:
Great potential for education of the sustainable systems
incorporated into the design.
Lead by example and show the public what is possible.
Potential to create an eco-grid for a particular district.
Reduce the use of personal transportation with many City
services located next to public transportation.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Works for both designs:
Retail space at parking garage.
Allows for employees and customers to use City transit
system for access to many services.
THREATS:
Works for both designs:
Many employees will need to adjust to cubical
spaces.
THREATS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
The potential for City of Fort Collins to sell off the
open civic space for private development.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Loss of current Washington Park and trees.
Potential security issues with Civic space not visible
from LaPorte or Maple streets.
Works for both designs:
A negative perception by the Public of the open civic
space.
Potential security concerns between buildings.
THREATS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
More challenging to achieve Net Zero with development of
one block.
Works for both designs:
Portion of this development is in the 100 year flood plain.
Doing away with the buildings having historic significance.
THREATS:
Works for both designs:
Not getting the funding to complete the development of
Block 32 and 42 as designed.
NOTES:
1.c
Packet Pg. 44
#1.c: Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
Design works well using sustainable practices.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Six acres will bring in additional events which is revenue
generation for the City of Fort Collins.
Potential sell of Block 42 with all City functions on Block 32.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Repurposing Ops Services and City Hall to be used for
another 25+ years.
Design provides locations for private buildings lots to be
developed.
Both designs:
Add retail to the outer edge of development is revenue for
the City of Fort Collins.
Great use of City owned property.
Potential revenue generation for eco- grid system.
Catalyst for re-development of the surrounding area.
1.c
Packet Pg. 43
#1.c: Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (Utilities Building Update and Blocks 32 - 42 Master Plan)
Attachment20.6: November 19, 2013 Work Session Agenda Materials (2393 : Utility Building Appropriation)
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Potential to bring in some new larger events with
having approximately 6 acres available.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
New street layout could provide three separate
areas for multiple venues to use Civic space.
Works for both designs:
Opportunity for the public and City to engage on
more frequent basis.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Could upsize the relocated stormwater pipe and use it as a
water retention system.
Works for both designs:
Great potential for education of the sustainable systems
incorporated into the design.
Lead by example and show the public what is possible.
Potential to create an eco-grid for a particular district.
Reduce the use of personal transportation with many City
services located next to public transportation.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Works for both designs:
Retail space at parking garage.
Allows for employees and customers to use City transit
system for access to many services.
THREATS:
Works for both designs:
Many employees will need to adjust to cubical
spaces.
THREATS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
The potential for City of Fort Collins to sell off the
open civic space for private development.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Loss of current Washington Park and trees.
Potential security issues with Civic space not visible
from LaPorte or Maple streets.
Works for both designs:
A negative perception by the Public of the open civic
space.
Potential security concerns between buildings.
THREATS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
More challenging to achieve Net Zero with development of
one block.
Works for both designs:
Portion of this development is in the 100 year flood plain.
Doing away with the buildings having historic significance.
THREATS:
Works for both designs:
Not getting the funding to complete the development of
Block 32 and 42 as designed.
NOTES:
entire block.
Design works well using sustainable practices.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Six acres will bring in additional events which is revenue
generation for the City of Fort Collins.
Potential sell of Block 42 with all City functions on Block 32.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Repurposing Ops Services and City Hall to be used for
another 25+ years.
Design provides locations for private buildings lots to be
developed.
Both designs:
Add retail to the outer edge of development is revenue for
the City of Fort Collins.
Great use of City owned property.
Potential revenue generation for eco- grid system.
Catalyst for re-development of the surrounding area.
ATTACHMENT 9