HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 2/11/2014 - Council Finance Committee & Ura Finance Committee - February 10, 2014Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2014
RVSD 1/29/14 kw
Feb. 10 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Air Proposal 15 min B. Hendee
TIF – Exempt Tax Districts Analysis 30 min M. Beckstead
Sustainable Purchasing Update 30 min G. Paul
Briefing on Forming a Parking Fund 15 min R. Hensley
J. Voss
URA Union Place 30 min T. Leeson
Mar. 17 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
PFA IGA Revenue Allocation Formula 30 min M. Beckstead
T. Demint
2013 Financial Highlights 45 min J. Voss
Policy Review – Reserve/Fund Balances 30 min J. Voss
URA
Apr. 21 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
General Policy Review 5 min J. Voss
Fund Policies 5 min J. Voss
Use Tax Rebate Modification 30 min J. Ping-Small
J. Birks
URA
May 19 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Actuary Annual Pension Valuation Report (GERP) 30 min J. Stewart
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Capital Improvement Funds Policy Review
• Review Special Improvement Districts
• Budget Policy Review
• Auditor Report (July)
• Budget Briefing (Q3)
Future URA Committee Topics:
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
February 10, 2014
10:00 to noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the January 27, 2014 meeting
1. Air Proposal 15 minutes B. Hendee
2. TIF – Exempt Tax Districts Analysis 30 minutes M. Beckstead
3. Sustainable Purchasing Update 30 minutes G. Paul
4. Briefing on Forming a Parking Fund 30 minutes T. Leeson
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.
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.
February 10, 2014
Agenda Item Summary
Council Finance Committee
Arts Incubator of the Rockies – Funding Request
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $150,000 in General Fund Reserves as a challenge grant to
support the Arts Incubator of the Rockies requiring a dollar for dollar match from private donations.
City Plan identifies the importance of Fort Collins as a “destination for arts and culture” and Artists and
business of Arts is at the heart of achieving this outcome. Further, City Plan identifies that “arts, culture,
and recreation can help draw visitors and revenue into the City.” In the 2013/2014 City budget the Arts
Incubator of the Rockies (AIR) received $50,000 and $60,000 in annual support respectively. This
support, along with other private donations, has allowed AIR to develop curriculum and a website.
Despite the initial interest and successes of AIR, the incubator is experiencing budget challenges and has
requested $150,000 of additional financial support from the City. Funding would be used to pay for near-
term operational expenses, including salaries, marketing tools, and website operations, to facilitate the
evolution towards the program’s self-sustainability. Staff recommends the $150,000 be offered as a
challenge grant requiring a dollar for dollar match from non-City sources and conditioned in order to
ensure accountability and long-term viability of the incubator.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance subject to the described conditions.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Arts Incubator of the Rockies (AIR) was created in 2011 through a partnership between Beet Street, the
City of Fort Collins, and Colorado State University’s School of the Arts. AIR is an ecosystem that provides
artists, businesses and communities the tools, resources, and support to learn, connect and ultimately
succeed. Located in the historic Carnegie Library Building in downtown Fort Collins, AIR has the potential to
serve more than 280,000 artists and creative professionals in the ten Intermountain West states. Core
programs of the incubator include:
Workshops and classes offered on-site at the Carnegie Library Building and in-person throughout the
Intermountain West region. Fort Collins distance-learning classrooms and mobile equipment allow
some content to be offered as live-streams and on-demand.
A website portal for access to educational resources including knowledge and opportunity centers,
distance learning classes, collaborative projects, and social networking.
Networking opportunities both on-line and in person.
Coaching and mentoring opportunities for artists to learn and grow from experts.
Regional outreach opportunities by providing facilitators throughout the region to complement on-line
content.
A comprehensive internship program that creates connections between students and working
professional artists.
A $100,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts helped establish AIR, along with General Fund
support from the City. Through the Budgeting for Outcomes process, Economic Health provided $50,000 in
2013 and $60,000 in 2014 to support the operations of AIR’s headquarters. This support, along with other
private donations, has allowed AIR to develop curriculum and a website. In 2013, AIR debuted two of its main
programs, AIR Shift and AIR Evolve, intended to assist creative and business folks to leverage design
thinking, lean startup principles, and the AIR Venture Canvas approach. The intention of the programs is to
February 10, 2014
provide artists the resources necessary to be successful in business.
Despite initial interest and successes of AIR, the incubator is experiencing budget challenges and has
requested $150,000 of additional financial support from the City. Funding would be used to pay for near-term
operational expenses, including salaries, marketing tools, and website operations, to facilitate the evolution
toward the program’s self-sustainability. Economic Health and Cultural Services staff evaluated AIR’s
request. Both Economic Health and Cultural Services staff see value in the efforts of AIR but have concerns
regarding the long-term viability of the entity. These concerns stem from several items related to this funding
request:
This funding request occurs out of sequence with the City’s normal budgeting process and it is highly
unusual to bring forward separate funding requests out of cycle with our normal budget process.
Council has recently expressed concern with this process because it makes it hard to manage the
overall budget. Bringing forward a proposal also appears to the public as though the City is playing
"favorites" as opposed to using a competitive process that allows all community members to vie for
the same City funding.
The current budget appropriates $60,000 to support AIR activities in 2014, which is available as of the
first of January from the City. City Staff understood that the $50,000 provided to AIR in 2013 was
adequate to meet its budget needs in 2013. The recent $60,000 City grant was to fund efforts for
2014, not for payments owed for 2013. However, City review of AIR financials clearly indicates a
deficit of $60,000 heading into 2014. This gives rise to a concern about budget management moving
forward.
There is some concern about the ability of AIR to fund the remainder of the 2014 operating budget,
since staff understands that the current $150,000 request only addresses AIR’s funding needs for the
first quarter of 2014.
The Harvests proposal, to be partially funded from the proceeds of this funding request, is for
$238,000. This is a substantial amount. Based on the proposal timeline, the bulk of Harvests work will
be completed in the first quarter of 2014; however, Harvests has agreed to take payment over time
allowing the cost to be spread throughout the year. The City would normally undertake a public and
competitive process for a funding request of this size. This allows for the response to be vetted and
ensure the selected consultant provides the highest value for the public.
Based on information from the Harvests proposal, the projected annual operating budget of the AIR is
estimated at $2-$3 million. Since 2011, AIR has generated $30,000 in total operating revenue which
requires significant growth to achieve the projected revenue implied by the Harvests proposal.
The AIR service area includes a 10 state Intermountain west region and raises questions about the
direct benefit to Fort Collins relative to the benefit for the broader region. It is unclear what support if
any has come from other communities or states within that region.
While Economic Health and Cultural Services staff support the concept of Arts Incubator of the Rockies, it is
important that the City apply the same level of rigor to evaluating this funding request as it does all public
expenditures. However, in recognition of the public benefit provided by the incubator, staff recommends City
Council consider a supplemental appropriation to provide the funds to AIR. This appropriation should include
the conditions and structural elements intended to ensure accountability and long-term viability of the entity.
Recommended Conditions:
1. AIR staff will provide a timeline of activities, deliverables and performance milestones acceptable to
the City for 2014. This will include a quarterly report of progress including a financial
statement/balance sheet to be evaluated by the Finance Department. The Economic Health Office
will review this submittal and use it to form the basis for evaluation of performance by AIR.
February 10, 2014
2. City funds to be distributed in quarterly payments. The initial payment of up to $75,000 will be used
for a fund raising plan by Harvests. The remaining fund will be provided in two quarterly payments of
up to $37,500. All payments must meet the required funding conditions and defined deliverables and
performance milestones (to be established) prior to payment.
3. AIR must raise matching funds in the minimum amount of $1 for every $1 of City money prior to
receipt of City funds.
4. City funds may only be used to support AIR.
5. AIR staff must meet with the Economic Health Office on a monthly basis to discuss progress and
keep the City appraised of performance and fundraising objectives.
6. AIR finances will be reviewed monthly by the City Finance department.
At any time, if one of the above conditions is not met the City reserves the right to halt all payments from this
appropriation. In addition, the funding of AIR under this appropriation will be secured by a grant agreement or
similar document stating explicitly the activities funded, deliverables to be provided, and performance
milestones to be achieved by AIR.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
Adoption of the Ordinance would appropriate $150,000 of General Fund reserves to support the
operations of the Arts Incubator of the Rockies (AIR) in 2014. AIR plays a strategic role in building arts
and culture as an economic engine and may have the following benefits for the community:
Increasing the capacity, growth, and professionalism of our existing arts and culture industry;
Attracting artists, arts and entertainment businesses, and arts students by offering unique educational
programs attached to real-world career paths, internship opportunities, and a strong creative
workforce; and
Creating a regional identity that draws artists, visitors, arts funders, and patrons, fostering local pride
that encourages participation in arts and culture programming.
Public Funding of Arts Incubator of the Public
4.2 Assistance to or Support of Non-City Events and
Organizations
Community groups and organizations frequently contact the City seeking
assistance with events, projects or activities that they are planning. It is the
organization’s desire to participate in the community as any good corporate
citizen would and encourage employee involvement in community affairs.
However, City resources may only be used to advance public purposes that have
been recognized by the City as appropriate for City involvement, and in a manner
consistent with appropriate City programs or functions. City-sponsored or City-
supported activities for the benefit of City employees may be conducted using
City resources, funds or facilities if approved by the City’s Human Resources
Director, and as such do not fall within this policy. Therefore, the following
administrative policy shall apply to requests from individuals, groups, or
organizations seeking assistance or support from the City. Requests by
organizations for assistance or support in the form of articles or promotional
pieces in City publications are also subject to this policy.
A. Review of Requests
The request for assistance or support, including a request for inclusion
in a City publication, shall be in writing and sent to the appropriate
department or division head whose service or program will provide the
assistance. The department or division head or manager responsible
for the publication or requested assistance or support will review the
request using the criteria listed and any additional criteria appropriate
for the particular circumstances. If, based on this review, the
department or division head, or manager of the publication, determines
that the requested City assistance or support is appropriate and
beneficial to City interests, then the approving manager will work
with, or direct appropriate staff to work with, the requesting
organization to provide the assistance.
In some instances, it may be appropriate to condition the assistance, or
publication, or the department or division’s participation upon a
written commitment from the applicant to carry out the public benefit
that is the basis for the City participation. The approving manager
shall maintain documentation of the request, his or her subsequent
review and determination, and any arrangements that are made to
provide assistance.
B. Requirements
The following requirements must be met in order for the City to
provide assistance or support to non-City organizations:
1. The event, activity, or project for which assistance or support is
requested promotes health, safety, or general welfare and
benefits a significant segment of the citizens of Fort Collins.
City Plan - The City desires to support a “diverse range of
cultural and recreational options for citizens.” “Arts and
creativity integrated into community life and economic health.”
2. The event, activity, or project for which assistance or support is
requested supports one or more of the City Council’s goals,
adopted policies or plans.
CPR 1.1- Provide a mix of Cultural Facilities and Programs
CPR2.1 Promote Visibility of the Arts and Culture
CPR2.2 Build identity of Fort Collins as a world class cultural
center.
CPR 2.4 Serve as a local resource to local arts and culture
organizations
CPR 3.2 Support Education Programming and Participation
Policy EH 3.3 Support Local and Creative entrepreneurship
3. The requested assistance or support is consistent with the
particular City, department, division or specific project or
publication missions.
The request supports the economic health of the cultural arts
communit.y
4. Assistance or support from the City will be leveraged with
other funding or assistance.
The proposed funding is a challenge grant requiring a one for
one match from outside resources.
5. The assistance or support will not result in any direct financial
benefit to any private person or entity, except to the extent such
benefit is only an incidental consequence and is not substantial
relative to the public purpose being served.
The funding is being proposed primarily to enable the Arts
Incubator of the Rockies to become self-sustaining through the
use of matching funds to raise long term operating expenses.
Salaries are a part of the funding but are incidental to the
overall mission of the funding. AIR is a not for profit
organization.
6. The assistance or support will not interfere with current
department, division, or project work programs, hinder
workload schedules, or divert resources needed for primary
functions or responsibilities of the department, division, project
or publication. Requests for publication shall also be
considered in the light of editorial considerations regarding
publication space, layout, timing and intended audience.
The work will be completed by AIR staff and will only require
oversight on the part of the City.
7. If City facilities or staff is used, the supporting department
should contact Risk Management to assess insurance or
liability issues, if any.
The facilities for AIR will be in the Carnegie building. AIR
already has a presence in this facility.
200 Mathews Street; Fort Collins, CO 80524 Page 1
Date: October 16, 2013
To: Darin Atteberry, City Manager, City of Fort Collins
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, City of Fort Collins
From: Beth Flowers, Executive Director, Beet Street & Arts Incubator of the Rockies
Re: Funding for Creative Innovation Cluster and Arts Incubator of the Rockies
The Vision
The Arts Incubator of the Rockies, AIR, is built on the belief that creativity and the arts
are poised to take on a new role in our communities. There is a paradigm shift taking
place that encourages collaboration between the world of the arts and the world of
business that uses creativity, collaboration, and innovation to create new career paths
and increased opportunities for positive economic impact in our communities.
The rise of social enterprise, businesses that value community and public benefit as
much as financial profit, and the triple bottom line approach have created a new set of
shared values between the usually separate sectors of art and business.
AIR Ecosystem
AIR is on the cutting edge of this shift having developed creativity and innovation
programs, curriculum, and web-based services. The AIR ecosystem supports the
collaboration between and sector development of art and business and is already being
used by local arts and innovation oriented organizations, universities, entrepreneurs and
individual creative professionals.
The Potential
AIR originally intended to serve Fort Collins and a ten-state Intermountain West region.
Since 2011, AIR has engaged with many additional states and national and regional
industry organizations, funders, and key stakeholders who believe AIR is one of the
thought leaders of this paradigm shift. The market demand and sector interest is beyond
our original expectations and puts Fort Collins, as the headquarters of AIR, at the center
of a national dialog about arts and innovation.
Value
Support for AIR has significant benefit for the City of Fort Collins.
• Positions Fort Collins nationally as an important leader in the areas of art,
creativity, collaboration, and innovation.
200 Mathews Street; Fort Collins, CO 80524 Page 2
• Activation of underutilized City asset – the Carnegie Building. AIR has the
programs that will make it a crown jewel in Downtown, busy with the work of
nontraditional collaborations that will become new businesses.
• AIR will serve as the national cultural ambassador for Fort Collins – AIR’s
success and thought leader role enhances existing City outreach and marketing
efforts.
• AIR is economic development – programs are already increasing the financial
impact that professional creatives have in our community. New entrepreneurs
and creative professionals are moving here already because they have heard
about AIR and believe that Fort Collins supports creatives and innovators.
• AIR will spur reinvestment in the neighborhood surrounding Carnegie and back
into Downtown. New commercial and residential developments are already
beginning to surface because of AIR’s programs. ArtSpace, a Minnesota based
artist live/work space developer, has opened conversations with us about
potential Fort Collins projects.
• AIR programs are replicable. The systemic ecosystem AIR created allows small
cities, rural regions, and urban innovation hubs to build new relationships and
gain new skills that position them for long-term community wide innovation.
Additionally, the social enterprise business model being developed for AIR can
be used to assist other nonprofits that are struggling to find sustainable revenue
streams.
The Request - $150,000 in 2013
The City of Fort Collins is a key partner and stakeholder in the development of AIR. As
with many start-up ventures, AIR is experiencing success and strong interest, with eight
AIR programs scheduled for delivery in 2014 in Fort Collins and multiple cities in
Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada. But the 2013 budget is financially challenging. We are
seeking funding from the City of Fort Collins to cover near term operational expenses of
$150,000. These dollars will cover salaries, marketing tools, and website operations
necessary to keep on track to reach 2014 where our income potential is building and for
our evolution toward self-sustainability.
The City’s additional investment of $150,000 in our 2013 operations will also be an
important signal to other potential funders in the value of this program and encourage
additional financial investments in AIR’s future.
For the past four months, we have been working closely with Harvests, a Denver–based
marketing and business development firm. This year, Harvests partnered with the
nonprofit capacity builder, Community Resource Center, to conduct the first statewide
survey of nonprofit social enterprise activity titled Social Enterprise Readiness in
Colorado-2013. Based on SERIC’s findings, Harvests is expanding its client reach to
help nonprofits develop mission-led social enterprise initiatives.
With Harvests’ help, AIR can develop a successful growth strategy and implementation
plan. The City investment of $150,000 in 2013 will allow us to reach 2014, and leverage
Harvests’ expertise to map our next three years and secure launch funding of
200 Mathews Street; Fort Collins, CO 80524 Page 3
$2,000,000. With the funding from the city of Fort Collins, AIR will be able to engage
Harvests and become the pilot project for their unique social enterprise accelerator
initiative.
The AIR staff and Board of Directors are in agreement about the importance of creating
an organization that is sustainable and not reliant solely upon donor funds, but instead is
attracting investors who see the value of programs like ours. The interest in our
programming from the arts and business communities has been equally enthusiastic and
we know that we are well positioned to both develop a financially successful enterprise
as well as fulfill an important need in these communities. Our intention is to package our
programming and services to be implemented in markets across the country and the
Harvests team will help us to do that. Harvests has developed a highly unique and
comprehensive plan to facilitate AIR’s evolution into the premier source for professional
development serving the Intermountain West. These tracks include: Status
Assessment/Measurement; Fundraising/Capital Acquisition; Market Research;
Communications; Product Modeling; and Operations Design.
Collaboration and community are values central to AIR’s philosophies, which is why we
envision the Carnegie Building as the flagship model for other communities to create
multi-functional, collaborative space. We expect that our space will attract visitors from
across the country that would like to implement the AIR programming and they will come
to learn how we have done it here in Fort Collins.
Evolution of Beet Street
The requested funds could be tied to the evolution of Beet Street into a new creative
innovation cluster instigator that includes AIR – a great story that all of us would
welcome. The baggage of Beet Street’s history continues to plague AIR locally. We
realize that this evolution will take more time and effort to complete – but with the
support of the City of Fort Collins, we believe Beet Street will finally meet its ultimate
commitment to Fort Collins - to create an economic engine for Fort Collins through a
new creative innovation cluster and the Arts Incubator of the Rockies.
February 10, 2014
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Mike Beckstead
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Council Finance Committee requested a review of URA projects utilizing Tax Increment
Financing (TIF).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The URA has applied TIF financing to 10 projects in the North College and Prospect South
districts. Analysis will show the effects of TIF on the viability of the projects, public benefits
acquired, and District Taxing entity impact.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• How have we used TIF in the past?
• What projects were funded?
• How much of TIF is being utilized?
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint presentation
1
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Update
Feb 10, 2014
2
Questions
1) How we’ve used TIF in the past?
• What projects were funded?
• How much of projected TIF was used?
2) 50% model implications
• What is the implication on TIF available?
• Would a share model have enabled these deals
to happen?
3
North College
1) North College Marketplace
2) Kaufmann & Robinson Inc.
3) Aspen Heights
4) Northeast College Corridor
5) Jax Mercantile
6) North College Avenue Road Improvements
7) Rocky Mountain Innosphere (RMI)
8) Valley Steel & Wire Company
Prospect South
9) Prospect Station
10) The Summit (Capstone)
4
Summary of TIF Deals
North College
Prospect South
($ Millions)
NC
Marketplace K&R
Aspen
Heights
NECCO
Pond Jax
NC Rd
Improvements RMI*
Valley
Steel
Project Cost $40.0 $1.6 $46.5 $1.2 $1.2 $11.2 $7.2 $0.9
Total Anticipated
Increment 15.5 0.6 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.3 0.5
TIF Reimbursement +
Original Financing
Costs
11.2 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 3.8 4.3 0.1
% Total URA Cost to
Total Increment 72% 36% 32% N/A 28% N/A 100% 27%
($ Millions) Summit
Prospect
Station
Project Cost $44.0 $5.9
Total Anticipated
Increment 7.0 0.9
TIF Reimbursement +
Original Financing
Costs
7.0 0.7
% Total URA Cost to
Total Increment 100% 77%
5
Place-Making
North College Marketplace Intersection, roundabout, wetland mitigation and
enhancements, utility infrastructure improvements, gateway features
Capstone Resolve stormwater issue & challenging development area
Prospect South Brown field development
Jax Sewer and street improvements
Aspen Heights Street improvements
RMI Business incubation, job generation
Kaufman & Robinson Soil mitigation, stormwater & infrastructure
improvements, reclaim water system
Valley Steel Sewer expansion
Significant public improvements and benefits.
6
District Taxes
Difficult comparison given the uncertainty...would
these project have occurred without TIF support?
North College Prospect South
($ 000's)
NC
Marketplace K&R
Aspen
Heights Jax RMI
Valley
Steel Total Summit
Prospect
Station Total
Total Anticipated Increment
Current URA Model Available Funds $15,500 $600 $2,500 $656 $4,300 $510 $24,066 $7,000 $865 $7,865
Taxing Districts
Larimer Cty 3,741 145 603 158 1,038 123 5,808 1,689 209 1,898
City 1,627 63 262 69 451 54 2,527 735 91 826
PR 1 9,084 352 1,465 384 2,520 299 14,104 4,102 507 4,610
No Co Water 166 6 27 7 46 5 258 75 9 84
Health Dis. of N. CO 360 14 58 15 100 12 559 163 20 183
Pest Control 24 1 4 1 7 1 37 11 1 12
Library 498 19 80 21 138 16 774 225 28 253
$15,500 $600 $2,500 $656 $4,300 $510 $24,066 $7,000 $865 $7,865
7
If we used a 50% model?
North College Prospect South
($ 000's)
NC
Marketplace K&R
Aspen
Heights Jax RMI
Valley
Steel Total Summit
Prospect
Station Total
Total Anticipated Increment
Current URA Model Available Funds $15,500 $600 $2,500 $656 $4,300 $510 $24,066 $7,000 $865 $7,865
50% Model
Larimer Cty 1,870 72 302 79 519 62 2,904 845 104 949
PR 1 4,542 176 733 192 1,260 149 7,052 2,051 254 2,305
No Co Water 83 3 13 4 23 3 129 38 5 42
Health Dis. of N. CO 180 7 29 8 50 6 279 81 10 91
Pest Control 12 0 2 0 3 0 18 5 1 6
Library 249 10 40 11 69 8 387 113 14 126
Subtotal $6,936 $269 $1,119 $294 $1,924 $228 $10,770 $3,133 $387 $3,520
50% Model URA Available Funds 8,564 331 1,381 362 2,376 282 13,296 3,867 478 4,346
Total $ 15,500 $ 600 $ 2,500 $ 656 $ 4,300 $ 510 $ 24,066 $ 7,000 $ 865 $ 7,865
A share model similar to the current DDA model
would reduce available funding by $14M.
8
50% Funded Projects
North College Prospect South
($ 000's)
NC
Marketplace K&R
Aspen
Heights Jax RMI
Valley
Steel Total Summit
Prospect
Station Total
Total Anticipated Increment
Current URA Model Available Funds $15,500 $600 $2,500 $656 $4,300 $510 $24,066 $7,000 $865 $7,865
50% Model
50% Model URA Available Funds 8,564 331 1,381 362 2,376 282 13,296 3,867 478 4,346
Project Required TIF +
Financing Costs 11,177 217 792 186 4,291 137 16,800 7,000 669 7,669
Surplus / (Deficit)
GO No GO (2,614) 115 589 177 (1,915) 145 (3,133) (191)
North College road improvement funding of $3.8M would not have been available.
5 large projects that generated significant public benefit would not be funded with a
50% share model.
9
Process Improvements
• Reorganization allowing for an independent review by Finance
• Changes to the method for estimating Tax Increment generated by
a project – County Estimate of Value as basis
• Increased consultation with outside legal counsel
• New financial parameters and pay over time approach
Significant process improvements have been
implemented.
10
Process Improvements (cont.)
February 10, 2014
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Gerry Paul, Director Purchasing & Risk Management
Ed Bonnette, Senior Buyer
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Sustainable Purchasing overview and summary of 2013 accomplishments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Purchasing staff is committed to increasing awareness and developing processes, practices,
policies and metrics that increase the percent spend in sustainable materials, products and
services.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
To confirm Purchasing is focused on the right priorities to drive optimal improvement in
purchases of materials, products and services which contribute to enhanced stewardship of
Economic, Environmental and Social values of the City.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In March of 2012 the Green Purchasing Institute completed an evaluation of the City’s
Sustainable Purchasing practices and program. At the time of the evaluation the City did not
have a formal Sustainable Purchasing Program.
The 2013/2014 Purchasing budget included a dedicated resource to develop a comprehensive
Sustainable Purchasing program based on the input from the institute and best in class peers.
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint presentation
1
SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING
PROGRESS REPORT
Council Finance Committee
February 10, 2014
Executive Sponsor – Mike Beckstead
Champion – Gerry Paul
Project Manager – Ed Bonnette
2
VISION: The City of Fort Collins is a
recognized leader in the sustainable
purchasing arena.
“Sustainable purchasing takes into account the triple
bottom line of environment, social and economic
aspects. Sustainable purchasing also recognizes the
product life cycle of acquisition, utilization and disposal.
Safety is a recognized element in environmental, and
social segments of the criteria.”
3
Internal Sustainable Purchasing Home Page
Purchasing rebranded to Sustainable Purchasing
4
Accomplishments
• Created Foundation for Metrics and Reporting of
Spend Analytics
• Established Definitions for Green/Sustainable
Purchases
• Published Green/Sustainable Purchase
Criteria Checklist
• Developed Abbreviated Commodity Code List
to Capture Spend Categories
• Initiated PO Coding as Sustainable Y/N and
Assigned Commodity Codes
• Benchmarked with Best In Class Peer Agencies
5
Accomplishments
• Mandated Office Depot Business Solutions for all
Office Supplies – October 2013
• Total Green Spend increased:
• Q1 – 31%
• Q3 – 37%
• Initiated 30% Post Recycle Content (PCR)
Mandate – October 2013
• PCR Purchases increased:
• Q1 – 57%
• Q3 – 70%
• Q2 – 34%
• Q4 – 43%
• Q2 – 67%
• Q4 – 85%
6
Accomplishments
• Launched External Sustainable Purchasing Web
Site with Enviro Portal Links
• Piloted DocuSign Electronic Agreement Routing
and Signature
• Enrolled in the State Electronics Challenge &
Submitted 2013 Benchmark Report
7
Metrics – Defined Sustainable Criteria
Comprehensive Criteria Established to Define
Sustainable Products & Services
8
Metrics – Established Commodity Codes
COMMODITY CODE LIST FOR JDE PURCHASE-ORDER CODING
Rev 1/2/14 ecb
PRODUCTS:
070 VEHICLES/TRANSPORTATION EQUIP
206 COMPUTER HARDWARE & PERIPHERAL
209 COMPUTER SOFTWARE
340 FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
405 FUEL, OIL, & LUBRICANTS
425 FURNITURE: OFFICE
545 MACHINERY & HARDWARE, INDUST
550 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
556 TRANSIT BUS, MASS TRANSPORT
578 MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS
600 OFFICE MACHINES, EQUIP, ACCESS
615 OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL
645 PAPER
650 PARK, RECREATIONAL EQUIP, POOL
680 POLICE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
690 POWER GENERATION EQUIP, ACCESS
725 RADIO, PHONE, TELECOM EQUIP
745 ROAD & HWY MATL, ASPHALTIC
750 ROAD & HWY MATL, NOT ASPHALT
885 WATER/WASTEWATER CHEMICALS
SERVICES:
906 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, PROF
909 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, NEW/VER
910 BUILDING MAINT/REPAIR, JANITOR
912 CONSTRUCTION, GEN, BORE, DEMO
913 CONSTRUCTION, HORIZONTAL
914 CONSTRUCTION TRADES, REMODEL
918 CONSULTING SERVICES
925 ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROF
926 ENVIRONMENTAL/SUSTAIN SVCS
936 EQUIP MAINTENANCE/REPAIR SVCS
946 FINANCIAL SERVICES
948 HEALTH RELATED SERVICES
953 INSURANCE SERVICES
961 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
964 PERSONNEL, TEMPORARY EMPLOY
966 PRINTING SERVICES
988 LANDSCAPING
Strategic Spend Management
270 Commodity Codes Reduced to 37
9
Benchmarking Best In Class
Description Ft Collins, CO Seattle, WA Portland, OR
King County,
WA
San Francisco,
CA
Multnomah
County, OR Austin, TX
Alameda
County, CA
Santa Monica,
CA
Financial Systems Tracking Green Spend Yes No No Not clear No reply No No reply No reply No reply
Source for Definition of Green Spend City City Vendor County City County No reply No reply No reply
Source for Green Spend Reports City Vendors Vendors Vendors No reply No Reports No reply No reply No reply
Most Notable Best Practice
All POs coded
to capture
spend by
commodity
Train depts
who aren't
buying green
End users fill
out form to
capture green
spend
Report EPP
units bought
and dollars
spent
Developed
approved list for
green product
choices
Sustainable
purchasing
content
tailored to
audience
N/A
Sustainable
purchasing
content
tailored to
audience
No reply
Best Practices Adopted
Follow-up
training for
Office Depot
Leveraged
form for green
purchase
checklist
N/A N/A
Tailored
content to
match
10
DocuSign
Accelerate Document Execution and Measure Performance
11
Office Depot – 2013 Green Spend
Office Supplies - Increased Sustainable Spend by 6%
12
State Electronics Challenge
Focused on helping public and non-profit
organizations improve their electronics
stewardship over the total product lifecycle
Leveraging the SEC framework to drive
improvements in the sustainable purchasing,
operation, and ultimate disposal of electronic
assets.
13
State Electronics Challenge
• 129 Public and Non-Profit Partners in 36 States
• Toolset & Best Practice Sharing
• Benchmark with Peers
14
State Electronics Challenge
• Annual Assessment
• General Information
• Acquisition & Procurement
• Operation & Maintenance
• End of Life Management
• Annual Recognition – Gold, Silver & Bronze
Program will Drive Significant Improvement &
Stewardship in Lifecycle Management of Electronics
15
Collaboration
• City Sustainability Team
• Community Carbon Team
• Front Range Sustainable Purchasing Network (FRSPN)
• Climatewise
16
2014 Work Plan
• Implement Sustainable Purchasing reports using newly
developed JDE commodity codes
• Target 3-5 high impact commodity codes to convert to
greener alternatives – track progress
• Incorporate Sustainability & Triple Bottom Line into RFP
Evaluation
17
2014 Work Plan
• Complete DocuSign pilot and deploy for all Purchasing
contacts & renewals
• Standardize Acquisition & Use of Printers/Copiers Across
City
• Develop Purchasing literacy course for City wide training
i.e. Sustainable Purchasing 101
Initiatives Support Sustained Improvement
18
THANK YOU
February 10, 2014
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
STAFF: Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager; Sandy O’Brien, Financial Coordinator;
John Voss, Assistant Financial Officer
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of a Parking Revenue Fund
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is to inform City Council about
steps Staff is taking to create a Parking Revenue Fund in the City’s accounting system. The
recently-adopted Parking Plan contains an action item that calls for the creation of such a fund to
account for parking-related financial transactions.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
Does City Council have any concerns or suggestions about this action?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Parking financial transactions currently are accounted for in
the City’s Transportation Fund (Fund #292.) Other transportation departments, such as Streets,
Traffic, Engineering and FC Moves, also are accounted for in the Transportation fund. Revenues
that flow into the Transportation Fund come primarily from taxes and fees, such as General Fund
taxes, the Highway Users Tax Fund, development review fees, and others.
However, while the Parking department used to receive some funding from those sources, is it
now funded entirely from revenue generated by Parking operations. This change in funding for
Parking was made possible in 2010, when revenues from Parking operations became sufficient to
pay for parking-related operations and maintenance expenditures. Because Parking is a self-
sustaining operation, and because most Parking-related BFO offers are submitted to the
Economic Health outcome rather than Transportation, a recommendation was included in the
recently-completed Parking Plan to move parking-related financial transactions out of the
Transportation Fund into a new fund exclusively for Parking.
The benefits of making this change will be to provide a cleaner, more transparent method of
demonstrating that Parking is self-funded. This move will help facilitate the evaluation of
Parking offers in the Budgeting for Outcomes process, and will help the public better understand
where Parking revenues are being used and the services they provide. Also, the accumulation of
unused revenues in a Parking reserve fund will make it easier to fund and justify one-time major
maintain and repair projects in parking facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Five-year summary of Parking Services revenues and expenditures
data current as of January 31, 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
2009 - 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PARKING OPERATIONS
Revenue $819,109 $817,876 $909,209 $929,594 $874,369
Expenditures $780,164 $709,832 $679,083 $759,444 $741,943
CIVIC CENTER GARAGE
Revenue $563,107 $752,640 $758,673 $741,198 $751,962
Expenditures $561,687 $552,351 $545,773 $673,177 $763,349
OLD TOWN GARAGE
Revenue $205,339 $279,781 $274,112 $268,013 $261,112
Expenditures $278,156 $274,611 $258,855 $310,424 $345,918
TOTAL
Revenue $1,587,555 $1,850,297 $1,941,993 $1,938,805 $1,887,443
Expenditures $1,620,006 $1,536,794 $1,483,712 $1,743,045 $1,851,210
Net contribution to reserves -$32,451 $313,503 $458,282 $195,760 $36,233
PARKING REVENUES and EXPENDITURES
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Urban Renewal Authority Board Finance Committee
February 10, 2014
11:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the December 16, 2013 Meeting
1. Union Place 30 minutes T. Leeson
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Finance Committee Meeting
Minutes
12/16/13
11:00 to 11:30 a.m.
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Chris Donegon,
Susie Gordon, Bruce Hendee, Tom Leeson, Mindy Pfleiger,
Lucinda Smith, John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Approval of the Minutes of September 16, 2013
Ross Cunniff moved to approve the minutes for the November 11, 2013 meeting. Bob Overbeck
seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
URA Financial Review
Darin Atteberry and Ross have requested that a 3-4 month URA Dashboard be set up. Mike and Josh
Birks will work on setting that up.
Mike explained that TIF Districts are accounted for separately: money from one TIF district cannot be
used in another district. The North College TIF district is currently paying all administrative costs. Each
district assumes a 1% growth per year. Mike walked through Prospect South’s financials, explaining that
$8.6 M in property tax increment is anticipated through 2037, with $356 K in positive cash balance at
the end. The net cash flow is expected to be positive every year. Ross Cunniff asked what the
administrative costs were expected to be. Staff will work on estimating that. Tom Leeson noted that
some additional revenue was built into the mall that would go to administration/staffing. Bob
Overbeck asked if the URA fees captured any staffing costs. Josh Birks answered that the fees only pay
for outside administration costs such as consultants.
Mike walked through North College’s financials, noting that $30.7 M in property tax revenue was
projected through 2031. The district has two outstanding loan obligations: City for RMI2 ($5.3 m) and
2013 Bonds to outside investors ($11.1). The net cash flow is expected to be positive every year, with
the lowest cash balance occurring in 2023 at $166K. When RMI2 refinances in 2017, as required by the
agreement to trigger the $2.8M of TIF pledge, the URA will receive $2.5 M cash from RMI@, pay down a
significant portion of the loan to the City and then using the TIF revenue stream to pay the remaining
principle and interest.
2
Mike also presented a Stress Case, anticipating the possibility of RMI2 refinancing in 2017. If that were
to happen, RMI2 would lose the $2.8M TIF pledge and all TIF revenue would stay with the URA. RMI2
will also have to make a lump sum payment to the URA of $5.3M in 2029.
Ross Cunniff pointed out that it is not always the bottom line that determines the success of a plan. It’s
the bottom line of each project year. Bob Overbeck asked how often Staff will update the stress test.
Staff will update the stress test annually as well as updating it for each new project the URA considers.
Next Steps
Ross asked that the impact of TIF financing on the library district, school district, and such entities as
Foothills Gateway be looked into and that the numbers be brought to Council Finance. The topic will be
discussed in February. Darin noted that the City is committed to stronger collaboration with local
districts in the future as Staff considers TIF.
Staff: Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Revive Properties Request for Tax Increment Financing from the Urban Renewal Authority
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Revive Properties is a 89-unit residential housing and live-work project located to the west of
North College Avenue on Willox Street in the North College Urban Renewal Plan area. The
Developer has requested financial assistance from the Urban Renewal Authority for street
improvements, sustainability features, and stormwater detention improvements associated with
the project. The project will generate approximately $1.76 million in total tax increment, and the
URA staff is recommending a $1.27 reimbursement from that increment for eligible costs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Finance Committee feel the Developer’s financial request from the URA is
reasonable?
2. Should URA staff proceed with negotiating and drafting a Redevelopment Agreement?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Revive project represents a great example of how public-private partnerships can be used to
help the community achieve its long-term objectives related to creating great places and reaching
the community’s sustainability goals. Revive will be a unique development that utilizes
geothermal energy for heating and cooling homes, as well as solar power, in an effort to achieve
a Net Zero Capable community. It will be a model development for Larimer County.
Additionally, Revive will be a catalyst for redevelopment in the North College Urban Renewal
Area by providing much needed moderately priced housing.
Revive Properties is a new residential development proposed within the North College Urban
Renewal Plan area. The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has received a formal application
from Revive Properties, LLC (the Developer) requesting a total of $1,600,000 in financial
assistance, however, URA staff is recommending a reimbursement amount of $1,207,414 based
on the eligible costs associated with the project (See Attachment 1 for Project narrative).
In evaluating URA projects, significant consideration is given to the public benefits achieved by
the project. Public benefit is measured by the extent to which the project aligns and achieves
City policies and remediates blight.
Revive properties supports a number of City Plan policies, including:
EH 4.1 – Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
LIV 22.1 - Vary Housing Models and Types
LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Variation
2
LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets
ENV 6.5 – Offer Energy Efficiency Incentives
ENV 20.4 – Develop Public/Private Partnerships (Stormwater Management)
The North College Infrastructure Funding Plan was created to prioritize key infrastructure in the
area (See Attachment 2). The missing portion of Mason Street that Revive Properties will
complete is listed as a medium priority in the Plan. Although considered to have lower priority,
the stormwater detention pond is an important improvement for the West Side Drainage System
identified in the Plan. Furthermore, these improvements are listed in the Plan as helping solve
for adequate public facility issues and supporting economic development.
Moreover, the blight factors that will be addressed by this project include:
Deteriorated site or other public infrastructure – this area lacks an adequate, coordinated
drainage system, which this project is making progress to correct.
Inadequate public improvements or utilities – this project contributes to the creation of an
adequate drainage system and functional street network.
Substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites – the fact that this site remains
undeveloped in an otherwise urban area qualifies as helping to remediate this issue.
Details of the project and financial assistance request are described below, and staff is seeking
direction from the Finance Committee regarding whether there is support for pursuing a
Redevelopment Agreement with the Developer.
Project Description
Revive Properties is a 89-unit residential housing and live-work project located to the west of
North College Avenue on Willox Street in the North College Urban Renewal Plan area. The site
is approximately 10 acres and will include 37 town homes, 18 single-family homes, 18 carriage
homes, 13 live work units and, 3 condos (see Site Plan, Attachment 2). The subject property was
previously under development by Merten Homes as Union Place which was awarded $2.2
million in tax increment financing (TIF) revenues in 2008 under a redevelopment agreement
from the URA (See Attachment 3). The project experienced financial difficulties in late 2011 and
was transferred by deed in lieu of foreclosure to Adams Bank & Trust in early 2012.
The bank subsequently sold the property to Wendells Fertilizer in March of 2012 who then sold
the property to Revive Properties in September of 2013 for $3.64 million. The current developer,
Revive Properties, who is entirely owned by Placer Development, requested a redevelopment
agreement for $1.6 million in TIF reimbursements for costs associated with public improvements
and sustainability elements included in the current plan.
Between 2008 and 2011, Merten Homes, the Union Place developer, made significant
investments into the infrastructure and landscaping of the site that included the partial
installation of the geothermal heating system and much of the required roads and sidewalks.
Total site and infrastructure investments completed prior to the property being transferred to
Adams Bank amounted to approximately $724,467. A significant portion of these costs can be
attributed to Sustainable Improvements including the installation of a geothermal heating system
totaling $370,294. There has also been $354,173 in General Site Improvements including the
majority of the site’s roads and sidewalks.
3
It should be noted that Revive Properties has many of the invoices for the completed work;
however, some of the invoices are missing. As a result of this and given the amount of time that
has transpired, URA staff has indicated that reimbursement would only be considered for costs
yet to be incurred by Revive Properties, with the exception of the Mason Street public
improvements and the geothermal system. Revive Properties has provided the invoices for that
work and URA staff has acknowledged those improvements meet larger community goals and
have added extraordinary costs to the project.
Eligible Costs
The URA was created to eliminate blight using tax increment financing (TIF), and has the ability
to reimburse a developer for eligible improvements associated with the project. The Developer
requests financial assistance for Mason Street public improvements, regional stormwater
infrastructure, and significant sustainable strategies all of which are eligible under Colorado
Urban Renewal Law. Below is a description of the improvements and Table 1 provides the costs
associated with each.
Mason and Willox Street Improvements: Mason Street extends 495 feet to the south from Willox
Street. Mason Street is a two-lane collector as shown on the Master Street Plan and the only
public street located on the site. It will require a larger right-of-way and also includes more
utility infrastructure than what is necessary for a private street. In addition to the right-of-way
and utilities, the eastern portion of the site becomes very difficult or cost prohibitive to develop.
These factors lead to extraordinary costs that are above and beyond what is necessary for the
private development and also decrease the density and future development potential. TIF funds
are being requested to cover the costs for the construction of this street. These costs have been
incurred.
Landscaping in ROW and Regional Detention Pond: Significant landscaping is planned for the
Willox and Mason Street ROW, as well as the regional detention pond, which has been dedicated
to the City of Fort Collins. The detention pond will be utilized as both passive and active open
space for the neighborhood.
A 2” water tap will be required to irrigate all the public and community green space, as well as
the community gardens. The community gardens will also provide healthy food and act as
community gathering space. Added site amenities will increase the community experience. The
costs associated with these improvements are estimates and have not yet been incurred by Revive
Properties.
Sustainable Strategies:
• Renewable Energy: Geothermal Heating and Cooling – Revive Properties will be the first
development to utilize a geothermal system on a community wide basis. While the system is
significantly more expensive to install, it will result in significant energy savings to the
residents.
• Permeable Pavers: There are a significant number of permeable pavers throughout the site,
which reduce stormwater runoff and are a more aesthetic surface improvement. This will be a
model project for the City to test pervious pavers on a larger scale such as streets and parking
areas.
4
• LEED Consulting: CSU’s Institute for the Built Environment will evaluate the site for best
practices in neighborhood design using LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design – Neighborhood Development).
Table 1: Eligible Cost
Eligible Cost Amount
Willox Street Public Improvements
Signage & Striping $ 8,588
Subtotal $ 8,588
Mason Street Improvements
Dirt $ 1,639
Concrete $ 12,645
Asphalt $ 21,522
Subtotal $ 35,806
Landscape & Irrigation Detention Pond
2" Water Tap $ 137,325
Willox ROW $ 36,405
Mason ROW $ 13,604
Public park/Detention Pond $ 235,727
Community Gardens $ 20,000
Site Amentities $ 9,600
Monumentation $ 20,000
Maintenance and Warranty $ 28,960
Subtotal $ 501,621
Sustainable Strategies
Renewable Energy - Geothermal $ 500,295
Permeable Pavers $ 84,204
Solar Street Lighting $ 113,524
Onsite Recycling Management $ 11,376
LEED Consulting $ 15,000
Subtotal $ 724,398
Total $ 1,270,414
Retroactive Reimbursement
The URA staff has recommended a $1.27 million reimbursement, of which $490,304.43 are for
improvements that have already been completed. The Urban Renewal Authority Policies and
Procedures state: “TIF will not be used to retroactively reimburse projects or make payments to
cover costs associated with any actions incurred by a development/redevelopment prior to
execution of the Redevelopment Agreement, except for eligible hard costs associated
with public improvements required of the project as approved by the Board.”
It should be noted that of the $490K, just under $36K is for Mason Street improvements, which
are clearly public improvements; however, the remainder is for the geothermal system ($370K)
and a portion of the permeable pavers ($84K). While an important component of the project, the
5
sustainable features are not considered a “public improvement required of the project” and would
fall outside the URA policy.
The Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures also state: “The Board may, in its
discretion, amend or waive sections of this document when determined necessary or appropriate”
The URA staff is recommending the Board waive this section of policy document for the
following reasons:
• The sustainable features incorporated into the Revive project are consistent with other
community objectives related to sustainability.
• According to the EPA, geothermal heat pumps are the most energy efficient,
environmentally clean and cost effective system for temperature control.
• The intent of the Revive developer is to construct Net Zero Capable residential units, and
the geothermal system is a major factor in reaching that goal.
• In 2008 City Council adopted new carbon reduction goals for the Fort Collins
community, which is to reduce communitywide emissions 20% below 2005 levels by
2020.
• The geothermal system and permeable pavers are a major contributor to the extraordinary
costs associated with the need for URA assistance.
• One of the state objectives of the URA is to: “Promote energy and water efficiencies
within buildings and developments.”
Financial Analysis
The URA is under contract with Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), a consultant firm out of
Denver, CO, to conduct third-party financial analyses when TIF is requested. At the cost of the
Developer, EPS conducted a financial analysis to understand the financial need and
reasonableness of the TIF request.
Tax Increment Generation
The Larimer County Assessor’s Office performed an analysis of the potential tax that will be
generated by the project upon completion. Based on this analysis, the County estimates the
stabilized value of the property to be $18.6 million, generating $135,572 per year in tax over and
above the existing taxes collected, which represents the tax increment. Assuming construction in
2014, there are approximately 15 years remaining in the North College Urban Renewal Area
available to generate project increment, resulting in a total estimated increment of $1,762,436
(this assumes a 0% annual growth rate). Revive Properties is requesting $1,270,414 in TIF from
the URA, representing 72% of the total increment. This amount is consistent with the
established URA Financial Parameters, which limits the total amount of TIF assistance relative
to TIF generation to 75% for improvements which are generally considered enhancements.
It should be noted that the URA financial parameters also limit the percent TIF contribution
relative to total project cost to 15%. Revive’s total project cost is $5.4 million, excluding the
vertical construction costs. This puts the percent of TIF relative to project cost at 23%, which is
higher than the URA financial parameters. However, if the estimated vertical construction costs
are included ($18,697,200), then the percent TIF relative to total project cost is equal to 7%.
URA staff recommends evaluating the project with the vertical construction costs included as
that is what generates the property value, which generates the tax increment.
6
Financial Returns
EPS conducted an analysis to determine the impact of the URA’s participation on the
developer’s return on investment given the developer’s estimated revenue from lot sales.
Without financial assistance from the URA, the return is -30%; with the recommended URA
assistance, the return is -6.3%. EPS notes that a slight increase in estimated revenues from lots
sales results an improved return, although still lower than what a developer or investor would
expect for a real estate development project of this size and level of risk.
EPS concludes that the Developer’s TIF request is atypical in that Revive Properties request is
for the horizontal improvements only, and no pro forma has been provided for the vertical
construction. However, on face value, based on the order of magnitude planning level financial
data provided, the project meets the “but for” analysis requirement that the TIF funds are needed
to make the project financially feasible.
Preliminary Redevelopment Agreement Terms
The following points are to be included within the final Redevelopment Agreement (See
Attachment 5 for the Revive Term Sheet):
• The maximum URA reimbursement is $1,270,414.
• The reimbursement is contingent upon completion 25% of the units (22 units)
• The URA shall pay 72% of the increment annually generated by the project on the
property and paid during the preceding calendar year.
• The URA shall pay the developer a reimbursement until either: 1) the full payment of the
reimbursement obligation has been satisfied; or, February 1, 2029
• Revive Properties to complete construction of the Public Improvements by November 30,
2014.
• 25% of the units within the project by September 30, 2016.
• All units will utilize a geothermal heating and cooling system.
• All units will utilize solar photovoltaic systems and will incorporate Net Zero Capable
design
Staff Evaluation
Staff is supportive of the financial request for the following reasons:
The costs that the Developer is seeking assistance with are eligible public improvements
according to Colorado Urban Renewal Law.
The URA’s financial assistance fills a financial “gap” in the project.
The Developer’s financial return is lower than what a developer or investor would expect
for a real estate development project of this size and level of risk, even with the URA
assistance.
The Developer is seeking a proportion of total tax increment generated from the project
that is consistent with the URA financial parameters and will allow the URA to use the
remaining increment for additional North College projects.
7
Next Steps
If the Finance Committee is supportive of the project and believes the financial request is
reasonable, the next step is to finalize the Redevelopment Agreement with the applicant and
bring the Agreement forward for formal URA Board approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revive Properties partial URA Application
2. North College Infrastructure Funding Plan – Project Map
3. Revive Properties Site Plan
4. Union Place Redevelopment Agreement
5. Revive Term Sheet
6. Staff Presentation
What R
evive Area
is of
is
the
a Fort
sustainable
nature Collins.
of
the
redevelopment The
project? property
project was formerly
in
the
North know
College as Union
Urban Place
Renewal and
experienced in this
2009
challenging
that
financial
was
site
not
in
paid
difficulties
hopes
and
of
has
bringing
in
expired.
the
past.
a
healthy,
Revive
Union
Place
energy
Properties,
was
efficient
awarded
LLC
and
is
redeveloping
$
moderately 2.2M
in
TIF
priced Urban
Renewal
neighborhood
b
. T
he
Why TIF
is assistance
TIF
assistance is needed
needed; to
how bring
will a model
the
funds sustainable
be
used? community to North
College. of community Mason
The Street
park
assistance
in north
the
regional
will of
offset the
detention river,
the
cost public
of
ponds,
infrastructure improvements
creating
community
for to
building Willox,
gardens
the building
first
and
leg a
to and implement
pervious
surfaces. state-‐of-‐the-‐art sustainability practices including renewable energy
The the oversized
economic first leg
infrastructure of
value Mason
of
the Street,
on
development
both a
Willox major
was
and regional
Mason.
decreased stormwater
The
by
10.
the 2
requirements
I
nfrastructure a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Remove Improve
Provide Continue Create transit Provide Stimulate buildings Provide
a
an
a deficiencies
the
for
dense
public
the
model
economics
attractive
regional
blight
completion
urban
infrastructure
of
of
sustainable
will
stormwater
a
image
opportunities
core,
partially
of be
the
to
connecting addressed
on
brand
community
street
developed
detention
Mason
by
the
network
optimizing
with
downtown
and
growing
neighborhood
Willox road
area and
via land
pedestrian utility
use
with improvements;
multi-‐
paths story
and
neighborhood Management Willox Lane;
and the meetings
R
evive Built
Environment
will
be
built
using is evaluating
the
best the
practices
LEED for
in
Neighborhood
green
building.
Development
CSU
Institute
for criteria
the
and developing professionals making the recommendation are Architectural LEED Accredited Guidelines. based Professionals on those The best and developer, practices. Certified builder
Energy The and IBE Managers. is design also
Exterior from solar
power metal
lighting
and halide
designed
is
being lights.
designed
to The
potentially homes
using will
be
induction
Net be
Zero powered
lighting
energy by
and
to geothermal
lower
carbon
the
neutral.
energy energy
The
use and
building carpets System) and rated materials healthy
and
at will materials. the include
minimum, green All
model homes building
homes will standards be
will HERS
be
certified of (Home low/
under no Energy VOC the paints, Rating
DOE
Home W
B
reakdown I
tem West Master the
width
#
Willox
Street 1
Willox
of
Lane
developable
Description
Plan
Public
improvements
dictates
Improvements:
property
of
a
URA
2-‐lane
required
Cost
on
arterial.
the
Coverage
site
a
large
This
just
increase
south
increased
of
in
Willox.
road
the
ROW
width
There
because
decreased
is
also
the
an
existing mixed-‐upgrades use large
by development.
the Greeley
City.
These water The
public line public and
improvements a improvements sewer line
financially on-‐along site restricting
exceed Willox
the include the
Item The practices. items
#4
Sustainable indicated below
Strategies are sustainable practices above standard development
1. Geothermal community
Renewable wide -‐
energy This basis. will
-‐ be This the system first development is more expensive to use geothermal to install but energy will have on a
significant use technology. of geothermal
energy
savings. energy.
It
will This
provide is an innovative
Fort
Collins and
Utilities potentially
a
model revolutionary
to
study
the
2. This as
streets
Permeable
will
be
and
a
model
Pavers
parking
project
–
pads.
reduce
for
stormwater
the
City
to
test
runoff
pervious
and
provides
pavers
a
on
more
a
large
aesthetic
scale
such
site.
3. plants. 4. Pervious Induction concrete lighting – reduces -‐ Induction stormwater lighting run will off be and used reuses to fly meet ash from dark-‐coal sky
requirements 5. 6.
Onsite LEED
recycling Consulting
SITE
PLAN
8-‐
Townhomes
8-‐
SFH
w/
Carriage
House
10-‐Townhomes
10
SFH
w/
Carriage
House
12
Townhomes
7
Townhomes
5
Live
Work 8
Live
Work MU
3-‐3B
urban renewal authority
February 3, 2014
Susan McFaddin
Seven Generation
4038 Timberline Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Revive Properties Public Financing
Dear Ms. McFaddin:
The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) offer the following public financing package
(the “Package”) in support of the Revive development located on Willox Street in the North
College Urban Renewal area (the “Project”). The Project will include the following key aspects:
37 town home units, 18 Single family units, 18 carriage house units, 13 live work units,
and 3 condos for a total of 89 units on 10-acres
Regional detention pond/public park
All units will utilize a geothermal heating and cooling system.
All units will utilize solar photovoltaic systems and will incorporate Net Zero design.
The URA Staff are pleased to offer this Package valued at approximately $1.27 million, as
shown in Table 1.
Eligible Cost Amount
Willox Street Improvements $8,588
Mason Street Public Improvements $35,806
Landscape & Irrigation Detention Pond $501,621
Sustainable Strategies $724,398
Total $1,270,414
Table 1 – Eligible Costs
The following terms provide an outline for the formal Redevelopment and Reimbursement
Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the URA and Revive Properties, which will require
approval by the majority of the URA Board (the “Board”).
City/URA Proposal:
The URA Board will consider formal approval of the URA-related terms below on March 4, 2014.
The following terms are offered contingent on the related Revive Properties proposal in this
memorandum:
1. Maximum reimbursement obligation will be $1,270,414, which is based on the eligible
costs identified above.
2. The Reimbursement Obligation is contingent upon Completion of Construction by the
developer of 25% of the units comprising the project, which shall be deemed to mean
obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for no fewer than 22 residential units.
3. No later than January 31st of each calendar year after the conditions for reimbursement
have been met, the URA shall pay to the developer 72% of the property tax increment
300 LaPorte Ave • PO Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970-221-6505 • TDD 970-224-6002 • renewfortcollins.com
determined by the URA to have been generated by the project on the property and paid
during the preceding calendar year.
4. The URA shall continue to annually pay the developer a reimbursement payment until
the earlier of the either: 1) the full payment of the reimbursement obligation has been
satisfied; or, February 1, 2029. Upon the occurrence of either of these events, the URA
shall no further obligation to the developer for reimbursement.
Revive Properties Proposal:
The URA proposal is dependent upon the following Revive properties proposal (to be
documented in the relevant agreements).
1. Revive Properties to complete construction of the Public Improvements by November 30,
2014.
2. Revive Properties to complete construction of 25% of the units within the project by
September 30, 2016.
3. All units will utilize a geothermal heating and cooling system.
4. All units will utilize solar photovoltaic systems and will incorporate Net Zero design.
The URA is pleased to offer this Package and the terms outlined above for your consideration.
We look forward to a long and fruitful partnership with Revive Properties.
Sincerely,
Tom Leeson
Redevelopment Program Manager
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CC: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, City of Fort Collins;
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, City of Fort Collins;
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, City of Fort Collins;
Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney
2
1
Revive Properties
Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
Financial Request
URA Finance Committee
February 10, 2014
2
Direction Sought
1. Does the Finance Committee feel the Developer’s
financial request from the URA is reasonable?
2. Should URA staff proceed with negotiating and drafting a
Redevelopment Agreement?
3
Public-Private Partnership:
• Creating great places
• Community sustainability goals
• Model development
4
Public Benefits
City Plan
• EH 4.1 – Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
• LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
• LIV 22.1 - Vary Housing Models and Types
• LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Variation
• LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets
• ENV 6.5 – Offer Energy Efficiency Incentives
• ENV 20.4 – Develop Public/Private Partnerships (Stormwater Management)
North College Infrastructure Funding Plan
• Missing segment Mason St – Med. priority.
• West Side Drainage System.
5
Public Benefits
Blight remediation
• Deteriorated site or other public infrastructure.
• Inadequate public improvements or utilities.
• Substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of
sites.
6
Project Description
• 37 townhomes
• 18 Single family units
• 18 carriage homes
• 13 live work units
• 3 condos
• Total of 89 units 1
• 10-acres
• Regional detention
pond/public park
• Geothermal
heating/cooling system.
• Photovoltaic systems
• Net Zero design
7
Financial Request
Total Project Cost (Vertical Excluded) $5,401,061
Projected Actual Value (Vertical Included) $18,697,200
Projected Annual Tax Increment $135,572
Total Property Tax Increment Expected $1,762,436
Total TIF Requested $1,600,000
% of Tax Increment Requested 91%
Total TIF Recommended 1,270,414
% of Tax Increment Recommended 72%
% of TIF Relative to Project Cost (Vertical Excluded) 23%
% of TIF Relative to Project Cost (Vertical Included) 7%
8
Financial Request
Eligible Cost Amount
Willox Street Public Improvements
Signage & Striping $ 8,588
Subtotal $ 8,588
Mason Street Improvements
Dirt $ 1,639
Concrete $ 12,645
Asphalt $ 21,522
Subtotal $ 35,806
Landscape & Irrigation Detention Pond
2" Water Tap $ 137,325
Willox ROW $ 36,405
Mason ROW $ 13,604
Public park/Detention Pond $ 235,727
Community Gardens $ 20,000
Site Amentities $ 9,600
Monumentation $ 20,000
Maintenance and Warranty $ 28,960
Subtotal $ 501,621
Sustainable Strategies
Renewable Energy - Geothermal $ 500,295
Permeable Pavers $ 84,204
Solar Street Lighting $ 113,524
Onsite Recycling Management $ 11,376
LEED Consulting $ 15,000
Subtotal $ 724,398
Total $ 1,270,414
9
Financial Request
Eligible Cost Amount
Willox Street Public Improvements
Signage & Striping $ 8,588
Subtotal $ 8,588
Mason Street Improvements
Dirt $ 1,639
Concrete $ 12,645
Asphalt $ 21,522
Subtotal $ 35,806
Landscape & Irrigation Detention Pond
2" Water Tap $ 137,325
Willox ROW $ 36,405
Mason ROW $ 13,604
Public park/Detention Pond $ 235,727
Community Gardens $ 20,000
Site Amentities $ 9,600
Monumentation $ 20,000
Maintenance and Warranty $ 28,960
Subtotal $ 501,621
Sustainable Strategies
Renewable Energy - Geothermal $ 500,295
Permeable Pavers $ 84,204
Solar Street Lighting $ 113,524
Onsite Recycling Management $ 11,376
LEED Consulting $ 15,000
Subtotal $ 724,398
Total $ 1,270,414
Retroactive Reimbursement
• $36 Public Road Improvements
• $370K & $84K for sustainable
features
Sustainable features are not: “public
improvement required of the project”
Board may waive sections of policy
document when determined necessary
or appropriate.
Sustainable strategies consistent with
many other community objectives.
10
Financial Analysis
Conclusion
• Developer’s request is atypical because it does not include vertical costs/returns.
• Recommended TIF amount is consistent with URA Financial Parameters
• Even with the requested TIF funds, the estimated returns are below what a developer
or investor would expect for a real estate development project of this size and level of
risk
Project Returns
Full TIF Amount
Requested
Recommended TIF
Amount
TIF AMOUNT $1,600,000 $1,270,414
Project Returns
Revenue $3,752,486 $3,752,486
Cost $5,363,094 $5,363,094
Project Return
Without URA Funds ($1,610,608) ($1,610,608)
With URA Funds ($10,608) ($340,194)
Return on Investment
With URA Funds -0.20% -6.34%
Without URA Funds -30.03% -30.03%
Project Returns with 10% Higher Revenues
Full TIF Amount
Requested
Recommended TIF
Amount
TIF AMOUNT $1,600,000 $1,270,414
Project Returns
Revenue $4,127,735 $4,127,735
Cost $5,363,094 $5,363,094
Project Return
Without URA Funds ($1,235,359) ($1,235,359)
With URA Funds $364,641 $35,055
Return on Investment
With URA Funds 6.80% 0.65%
Without URA Funds -23.03% -23.03%
11
Redevelopment Agreement Terms
Max reimbursement - $1,270,414
Reimbursement contingent upon Completion 25% of the units
URA shall pay 72% of the increment annually generated by the project on
the property and paid during the preceding calendar year.
The URA shall pay the developer a reimbursement until either: 1) the full
payment of the reimbursement obligation has been satisfied; or, February
1, 2029.
12
Redevelopment Agreement Terms
Revive Properties to complete construction of the Public Improvements
by November 30, 2014.
25% of the units within the project by September 30, 2016.
All units will utilize a geothermal heating and cooling system.
All units will utilize solar photovoltaic systems and will incorporate Net
Zero Capable design.
13
Staff Evaluation
• The storm drainage detention pond and enhanced
Mason Street improvements impose extra cost on
the project.
• Sustainable features and Net Zero Capable
Homes consistent with City goals
• Request is for URA-eligible improvements.
• URA funding facilitate the construction of regional
street and storm water improvements.
• Developer’s return is below market expectations.
14
Direction Sought
1. Does the Finance Committee feel the Developer’s
financial request from the URA is reasonable?
2. Should URA staff proceed with negotiating and drafting a
Redevelopment Agreement?
that
protect
management and
the Green
environment
–
will Architecture-‐
reduce
and
landfill
lower CSU’s
waste.
energy Institute
use. for the Built
Environment LEED-‐Development)ND (Leadership
will .
Green
evaluate
Architectural in
the Energy
site
for and
Guidelines
best Environmental
practices
will
provide
in
neighborhood Design the
best -‐ Neighborhood
practices
design
using for
sustainable public 7. Sustainable
alike.
neighborhoods. Design Consulting
This
will
be –
a Additional
learning
opportunity civil and architectural
for
students
and design
the
consulting 8. detention Additional
ponds.
service. Stormwater Grading – Additional grading for regional stormwater
needs area utility
and for
ability being curb
and
requested
of
gutter.
this
development
for
the
construction
and
benefit
of
the
this
health
street
of
and
the
for
community.
utilities,
landscaping,
TIF
funds
and
are
Item Mason lane on the
collector
#
Street 2 site.
Construction It
extends
as
will
shown require
495
of
on
Mason
feet
the a larger
Master
from
Street
West Right
Street
Infrastructure:
Willox of
Plan
Way
Lane.
and (ROW)
the
Mason
only and
public
Street also includes
street
will
be
located
a utility
two
infrastructure and less)
utilities, becomes
the
more very
eastern
than difficult
most
is
necessary or
section cost prohibitive
of
for
the
a
private
land to
that
street. develop.
remains
In These
addition
(35
feet factors
to
in
the
width lead
ROW
or to
extraordinary and being also
requested decreased costs
for
the above the
construction density and
beyond and
of future
this
what
street development is
necessary
and
the
utilities, potential. for
private
landscaping, TIF
development funds
and are
curb I
tem S
ignificant Regional
and
#3
Landscaping
Detention
gutter. landscaping
Pond. is
The planned
Regional for the
Detention Willox
Pond and Mason
has
been Street
dedicated ROW and
to
the the
City neighborhood of Fort Collins.
and
the
surrounding This will provide
community. a great community experience for the
A Community amenities 2” water
will
Gardens tap
increase will
will be
the
be required
community
provide to
healthy irrigate
experience.
food all
and the
create public
community and community
areas. areas.
Site
T
here use
of
will
xeriscaping
be
a
reduction
throughout
in
water
the
site.
needs
Plants
from
will
the
showcase
City's
water
planting
supply
materials
through
that
the
are of effect. buildings
native
Fruit
and
trees -‐
more thus
are reducing
sustainable.
planned heat
as
Additional
a and
source cooling
of
trees
food loads
contribute
for and
residence reducing
to
the
and
natural the
as
ingredients heat
shading island
for
a
local
cidery.
e
are
Challenge
investigating
or
LEED
the
use
for
of
Homes.
existing
surface
water
rights
for
irrigation
in
order
to
lower use infiltration plants the
use and surfaces
of
domestic trees are and
potable used maximizes on
water. alleyways infiltration.
Landscaping and Pervious numerous
design pavers includes parking with low
water spaces gravel
throughout i
. Please provide
the
site. documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven
methods or effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features within the
project. T
he and
latest design
100 were.
year The
flood site
proved uses
how pervious
effective pavers
the
stormwater and gravel to
infiltration absorb the
methods storm
water. retain
water.
None
of
The
the
other
lots
two
retained
detention
any
water
ponds
and
filled
two
up
of
to
the
maybe
detention
20%
of
ponds
capacity.
did
not
The carbon. j
.
What geothermal
is
the
proposed and solar
project technologies
timetable are
(what known
is
the to
estimated reduce energy
time
frame load and
for
major steps including the City's planning decision, completion of financial
commitments,
start
of
construction,
and
issuance
of
Certificate
of
Occupancy
(O
ct CO)
2013 ? Revive TIF
Funding
Properties,
to
be
determined;
LLC
acquires
land;
Nov Jan 1st
Qtr
2014
2013
2014 Architectural Apply Begin
home
for
Construction
construction
Design
of
Permits
SFH
2nd 3rd 4th
Qtr
Qtr
Qtr
2015
2014
2014 Complete First Complete
COs
and
Landscaping
build
Model
out
Homes
Installation
Master addition
Street have of the
Plans been Mason
will held
be Street for
implemented community corridor;
through and support. additional
the The
upgrade interior Access
of
public within and the
the and
surrounding relationship private street
urban with networks.
area downtown
with Land
strong will use
pedestrian will create be mixed-‐more
access. use demand
Increased and high for
density density public
transportation, with benefit
new
the
development.
character
bike
and
of
Fort
pedestrian
Multi-‐
Collins. story
access
A
architecture
diverse
reducing
mix
and
of
traffic
sustainably
design
and
will
pollution
built
contribute
housing
associated
to
sizes
and
and a County small
types
in environmental
sustainable
will
help
the
development.
people impact
in
on
the the
area. community
The
major and
goal
be
of a
model
the
project for the
is
to
City
create and
g
. T
he underutilized
How
site
will
has
the
remained
location.
project
partially
help
The
development
eliminate
developed
slum
has
and
and
helped
an
eye
blight
eliminate
sore
conditions?
for
three
blight
years
by
upgrading
and
is
an
the regional the
lot current
and
stormwater
properties street (Willox)
pond)
along
following
Willox and installing
is
improved
the
City's new
with
Master infrastructure
the
Street
Willox
Plan.
Street (Mason
Accessibility
upgrade. Street
The and
to
development utilities. Developing The
the improves
property parks and the
will public
increase community sewer
the
property gardens system and
value will provides provide
of
surrounding new for and public
properties, upgraded space.
which improving will
the increase
health,
safety the incentives
and
welfare for
of building-‐
people
living replacements
and
working and
in or
the upgrades
area.
h
.
How
will
this
project
help
achieve
the
URA
goals
of
sustainability
through
green
building
techniques?
Please
be
specific
how
this
project
uses
energy
efficiency,
renewable
resources,
natural
resource conservation techniques, stormwater low impact design methods, or any
other
methods
not
listed.
original detention
acre pond
site
to
build
was and
decreased T
his
project
to
will
7
buildable implement
acres. significant stormwater
management techniques
using
pervious potential
learning pavers, xeriscaping
opportunity and
for
the ultra-‐
City efficient
on
the
use irrigation
of
pervious systems.
pavers This
for will
streets. be a
Large-‐The c
. T
he d
.
What
How
funds
developer, scale
will
other
will
renewable the
be
sources
local
project
used
builders
to
energy
of
offset
help
financing
and
technology
the improve/
local
costs
will
banks
of
the
had upgrade
infrastructure
will
project
never
finance
public
been
secure
the
use
for infrastructure
project.
other
geothermal
in
the
than
County.
TIF?
energy.
(streets,
utilities, T
he first
project
leg
of
drainage,
Mason
will
upgraded
Street
etc.
corridor )?
Willox
north
Street
of
with
the
river
curb
was
and
installed
gutter
and
with
landscaping.
street,
utilities
The
and detention landscaped
curb
and pond
as
gutter.
a
public system
The
park.
landscaping was
A built. community
will The
be detention
garden
installed.
will ponds
A
be
large installed will
regional be designed to
stormwater
grow fresh and
food. e
.
How
will
the
project
enhance
the
property
tax
base
(and
sales
tax
base, if
applicable) T
he undeveloped project
of will land
the significantly
area? initially and enhance will be a the model property sustainable tax base. mixed-‐The use property community was
when f
.
How
completed.
will
the
project
help
achieve
the
goals
of
the
Urban
Renewal
Plan
and
City
Plan?
Area.
to
North
College.
This
will
stimulate
growth
for
North
College
The environmentally unit
of US
energy EPA
used says
clean
in that
a
and
ground geothermal
cost
source
effective heat
heat
system
pump, pumps
for
4-‐are
temperature 6
times the
that most
energy
control. energy
is
For
available efficient,
every
for temperature greatly heating
reduce
of and
the
the
use
earth cooling
of
fossil
as using
a
heat
fuels.
source geoexchange
and
sink technology.
lowers
the Using
energy the
use constant
and
the
R
evive and cooling
will
be homes.
a
unique With
development the addition
in
that of solar
it
uses power,
geothermal these homes
energy can
for produce
heating
close be sustainable
net
to
carbonless
all
the
development
energy
since
they
use in
use,
renewable
Larimer
which
County.
energy
is
commonly
instead
Homes
referred
of
will
fossil
be
to
designed
fuel.
as
Net
It
will
Zero,
and
be
a
and
built
model
can
to
the compact owned best
by housing practices the
City, and
will in green community
be
converted building. parks. in The to
an The site irrigated regional is a New
community detention Urbanism
park. pond, design
The which with
site is
uses maximizes water
use. pervious stormwater paver for infiltration. parking Xeriscaping stalls, crosswalks and Ecoturf and landscaping a drive alley, minimize which
R
evive District
by will
providing be a catalyst
moderately for redevelopment
priced
single-‐of family the
homes, North College
townhomes, Urban
mixed Renewal
use
homes R
evive
and
is
located
commercial
one
mile
space.
north
of
downtown
and
in
close
proximity
to
many
of
the
Poudre flagship the
employees
King river
Soopers
of recreational
downtown
town
center opportunities.
businesses.
provides
for The
a
bike proximity
friendly to
lifestyle downtown
for
many and the
of
S
ustainability Challenge
Home goals
program included
and/certifying or
the
US
Green homes
Building under the
Council's Department
LEED
(of Leadership Energy's
in Built Developments
Energy Environment
and
Environmental (ND) and will sustainable provide
Design)
for consulting architectural
Homes
program. on guidelines. LEED
The
CSU for These
Institute Neighborhood programs
for
the
follow and from comfortable
Energy the best
Star practices
3.environments 0,
WaterSense in building for
and occupants.
Indoor science
AirPlus and The provide
programs. design energy will include efficient, standards healthy
audience
Importance
of
responding
to inquiries
Tailored
content to
match
audience
Importance of
responding to
inquiries
Fort Collins is Leveraging Best Practices