Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 10/27/2015 - Council Finance And Ura Finance Committee Agenda - October 26, 2015Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee Agenda Planning Calendar 2015 RVSD 10/12 mnb Oct 26 TOPIC TIME WHO CFC Downtown Parking Structure Financing 30 min M. Beckstead J. Birks Sales Tax Recapture – review opportunities 30 min M. Beckstead J. Birks Policy Updates – Metro District & Pension Funding 15 min J. Voss URA TIF Assistance Proposal 30 min J. Birks URA 2016 Budget 15 min J. Birks Nov 18 TOPIC TIME WHO CFC Street Oversizing Impact Fee Update 30 min D. Klinger County Road & Bridge / I25 Proposal 30 min M. Jackson URA Dec 21 TOPIC TIME WHO CFC Utility – Capital Requirements within Water Enterprise 30 min L. Smith Strategic Risk Assessment 30 min A. Gavaldon Policy Formalizing Use Tax Current Practices 15 min T. Storin Response Plan to 2014 Audit Findings 20 min T. Storin URA Jan 25 TOPIC TIME WHO CFC URA Other Business – October 26th Financial Management Policies Posted on FCGov.com Revenue Diversification Opportunities Reschedule January and February 2016 due to falling on Holidays Future Council Finance Committee Topics: Revenue Diversification - Sales Tax on Services, Admissions Tax, Property Tax Revenue Possibilities Xcel Franchise Opportunity CAP Financing Strategies 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 October 26, 2015 10:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. CIC Room – City Hall Approval of the Minutes from the September 21, 2015 meeting Council Finance 1. Downtown Parking Structure Financing 30 minutes M. Beckstead J. Birks 2. Sales Tax Recapture – review opportunities 30 minutes M. Beckstead J. Birks 3. Policy Updates – Metro District & Pension Funding 15 minutes J. Voss URA Finance 4. TIF Assistance Proposal 30 minutes J. Birks 5. URA 2016 Budget 15 minutes J. Birks Other Business • Financial Management Policies Posted on FCGov.com • Revenue Diversification Opportunities • Reschedule January and February 2016 meetings due to falling on Holidays 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 09/21/15 10:15 - Noon Community Room Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff Staff: Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, John Duvall, John Voss, Andres Gavaldon, Lawrence Pollack, Karl Gannon, Kurt Ravenschlag, Peggy Streeter, Noelle Currell, Nancy James Others: Kevin Jones – Chamber of Commerce Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gerry Horak made a motion to approve the August 24, 2015 Council Finance Committee minutes. Wade Troxel made a second to the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE Staff has evaluated the current Occupational Tax and City code arrangement with Xcel compared with the operational and financial implications of developing a Franchise Agreement for natural gas that would replace the Occupational Tax. The financial difference between the two options are as follows: Occupational Tax: • Governed by TABOR • Citizen vote requirement to change • Tax set in 1987 at $445k per year Franchise Fee: • Franchise rate set as % of revenue • Fee revenue increases with volume • 3% rate would generate $1.2M/year The Public Utilities Commission establishes customer service requirements; Franchise Agreements do not include customer service requirements. There was some discussion regarding this item in relation to customer service issues. The provider to date has been somewhat remiss in its customer service obligations. Staff has not 2 recommended that we enter into a Franchise agreement, due to the fact that all fees are directly passed on to the customer. Staff’s Recommendation: • To better analyze non-franchise options the City’s legal department may need to prepare memo outlining available legal options including: o Changes to Occupation Tax via City Code o Franchise Agreement and tax combination o Customer Service possibilities within a Franchise Agreement • If direction to move forward, create 2016 BFO Offer to fund consulting and legal support o Engage Excel regarding Franchise Agreement in 2017 o Evaluate current Excel master standard agreement for possible modifications which could lead to advisor expense and negotiation costs After discussion, Council asked staff to continue exploring a Franchise Fee alternative as a revenue diversification effort and as a way to generate revenue to support the Climate Action Plan. Staff noted resource limitations support a full blown Franchise Agreement negotiation given other priorities. Staff was directed to review other franchise agreements across the state to understand what, if any, customer service requirements have been included, and to evaluate the changes within these agreements vs. the standard Xcel agreement to better determine the work required to purse an agreement. Staff will look at other franchise agreements in other communities and bring this topic back to CFC early next year. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE (CLEAN-UP) REVIEW The purpose of this annual Budget Adjustment Ordinance is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2015 annual budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds, and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance. This Ordinance increases total City 2015 appropriations by $13,548,668. However, Lawrence stated that the amount that will be presented to Council will be reduced by $339,000. The reason for this is that they found a doubled-up transfer. Typically with transfers in governmental accounting, you appropriate in one fund, and transfer to another fund, and then appropriate it again. For one of the line items for $339,000, there was already an existing appropriation in the general fund. Specifically, the Ordinance would increase General Fund 3 2015 appropriations by $2,738,137 including the use of $1,142,913 in prior year reserves. Funding for the total City appropriations is: • $3,699,642 from additional revenue • $7,797,825 from prior year reserves • $1,712,201 transferred between funds This will appear on Council’s consent agenda, stating it has been reviewed and is support by the Council Finance Committee. TRANSFORT BUS PAYMENT Staff is requesting an appropriation in the amount of $1,734,598 to pay for two Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 60' Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses for MAX. The requested funding sources and amounts are as follows: MAX Local Project Funds; $260,711, Transportation Fund Reserves; $741,288 and Transit Fund Reserves; $732,599. The reason for the bus procurement: • Longer than anticipated travel times on Guideway • Need for spare vehicle • Current MAX ridership capacities The background on this item was given by Kurt. After the MAX Guideway was constructed it became clear that the originally-projected travel time of 20 minutes could not be met utilizing five (5) buses as originally planned. In practice, bus operators were taking as long as 30 minutes to travel the Guideway. There were various reasons for the longer travel times, but the primary issue was slower travel times through major intersections than had been anticipated. Consequently, two additional BRT buses were added to the operations in order to meet the frequency of service required by the Project Construction Grant Requirement (PCGA). The PCGA is the official contract between the City and the FTA for the MAX project. The PCGA set forth the scope of the undertaking of the project as well as the budgeted funding amounts across a number of expense classification codes. When all six (6) BRT buses were put into service there were no spare vehicles designed for BRT operations. Transfort staff informed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of this issue and made an eligibility request to purchase two additional BRT buses with remaining federal MAX project funds to provide an adequate spare ratio. On September 5, 2014, the FTA sent a letter of concurrence to the City, allowing for the purchase of up to three more buses. After receiving the letter of concurrence from FTA the City entered into an agreement with NABI (bus manufacturer) to purchase two additional BRT buses within two weeks of receipt of the FTA letter. Shortly after the purchase of the two additional BRT buses, FTA contacted Transfort to express concern that the City may not be eligible for additional bus funding. Staff was surprised by this questioning thinking this funding arrangement was very clear in the Financial Management Plan, as well as the justification used by FTA themselves to allow the City to purchase the two additional buses. FTA informed the City that their concern stemmed from the fact that the PCGA’s budget referenced the six bus requirement as being funded at an 80% level with federal funds and not at the 50% level as stated in the Financial Management Plan. At the time, it was pre-supposed that a routine PCGA budget revision of the federal allocation would amend the oversight. In April 2015 the FTA notified Transfort that the two additional BRT buses purchased would not be eligible for federal funds within the MAX project due to the above referenced reasoning, and that FTA needed to retain 80% 4 interest in all six of the original buses purchased for MAX. FTA could not authorize a revision to the PCGA without authorization from Congress. FTA staff does not recommend asking Congress for a revision such as this. Darin also spoke about FTA and their past performance; they have been a great partner and have gone through some major leadership changes through the context of this project. As such, there will be different administrators with different opinions, etc. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of funds to purchase the BRT buses, as the buses are essential for MAX operations. After discussion, it was determined that the buses do need to be paid for and staff was directed to bring forward the appropriation. SALES TAX CODE CHANGES Staff brought forward the consideration of potential code changes to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code to correct the expiration date (December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2020) of the .85% Keep Fort Collins Tax (KFCG), to update the expiration date for the street maintenance tax, and to amend the due date for the manufacturing equipment use tax rebate application. The street maintenance tax was extended through December 31, 2025, by voter approval. The current deadline for the manufacturing equipment use tax rebate (MUTR) is listed as December 31. It is being recommended this date be changed to June 30. The current process is the manufacturer pays use tax in 2015, applies for the rebate by December 31, 2016, and receives the rebate in 2017. The proposed process will be that the manufacturer pays use tax in 2015, applies for the rebate by June 30, 2016, and receives the rebate by December 31, 2016; manufacturer’s would receive rebates in a timelier manner; time frame between receipt of the revenue by the City and the payment of rebate would be reduced. CFC recommended sending all the manufacturers letters stating the new change. OTHER BUSINESS Gerry will be out of town on November 16, 2015. Staff will look at an alternative date for the November meeting. Gerry also requested that staff look at property tax; look at changing the mill levy, and some other alternatives. There was discussion about residential vs. commercial tax. John D. stated that there are some uniformity constitutional requirements in relation to taxes. This would have to be looked at to make sure that whatever is being proposed does not violate that. Gerry requested that staff look into this and decide if we can move forward. Wade also asked what affect does an acquisition of private sector properties to the state have on the City? Mike stated that staff will research this item and report back to CFC at a later date. Meeting Adjourned at 11:22 a.m. COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO; and Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Date: October 26, 2015 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for City Council to review the proposed public private partnership with the Fort Collins Hotel developer to construct a 323 stall parking structure. The structure will contain parking for the hotel and approximately 216 public parking spaces to meet future parking demands in the Old Town Historic District and River District. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council Finance Have Additional Questions of Staff? 2. Is Council Finance Supportive of Bringing This Proposal to Council on November 17th? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Project Overview Project Description The public-private partnership proposes to construct a 3-level mixed-use parking garage with approximately 322 parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets – 363 Jefferson Street (the “Project”). The project will be a public-private partnership between the City of Fort Collin and the developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality – collectively the “Developer”). The garage entry will be on Chestnut Street and the retail spaces will face onto Old Firehouse Alley (see Attachment #1 – Site Plan Overview). The Project will contain all required vehicle and bicycle parking for the hotel. Parking The Project is designed as a three bay garage with a central ramp for moving between floors (see Attachment #2 – Parking Structure Plans). The central ramp allows for the exterior of the structure on all four faces to have horizontal floors. This construction allows for an efficient use of the available footprint and a structure that addresses the streets and alley with a consistent façade free of the impacts from the required ramps. The structure will be constructed above ground with the exception of a short downward ramp on the first floor. The floor to ceiling height on the ground floor will be higher to accommodate retail space facing the alley. The result is approximately 323 parking spaces over three levels, see Table 1. Table 1 Parking Count By Floor and Type Tier Standard Van Accessible Accessible Total Ground 78 3 3 84 Second 117 0 3 120 Third 117 0 2 119 Total 312 3 8 323 Of the parking, 107 of spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins Hotel (approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on August 10, 2015) and the remaining 216 spaces will be public parking managed by the City. The hotel’s parking will include all of the ground floor with the balance of spaces located on the second floor. The remaining spaces on the second and third level will be available for public parking. The ground floor will have limited access for hotel patrons and staff only and will be used for hotel valet and general parking. The remaining hotel spaces will be designated as “Reserved for Hotel Use” using signs on the second floor, see Table 2. The ultimate count may vary some as the van accessible and accessible spaces are divided by user. Table 2 Parking Count By Floor and Use Tier Hotel Public Total Ground 84 0 86 Second 23 97 120 Third 0 119 119 Total 107 216 323 Retail The Project includes 3,200 square feet of retail facing Old Fire House Alley that will contain artisan and hotel supporting retailers (labeled as Retail/Office Flex Space on Attachment #2). This retail is located immediately across the alley from the Fort Collins Hotel bar and lobby space and will create an active and vibrant alley. In addition, the project includes the façade improvements for a similar amount of retail along the Jefferson Street structure face (labeled as Potential Retail/Office Flex Space on Attachment #2). This retail will not be constructed during the initial Project. This Jefferson Street facing retail will be reserved for future construction when nearby development has created a more active pedestrian atmosphere along Jefferson Street. The City will be able to drive the timing of this construction through an option specified in the purchase and sale agreement (see the Partnership Section for additional details). Design Considerations The proposed design is a result of a thoughtful context-sensitive approach by the Developer; see Attachment #3 – Project Renderings. Although the project is outside of the Old Town Historic District, the design team utilized the Old Town Historic District Design Standards to inform the building and site design. In addition, the design team referred to the River District Design Guidelines for Structured Parking 6.25 thru 6.27 for guidance on design. The result is a structure that bridges the industrial character of the River District to the historic character of the Old Town Historic District. The project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Landmark Preservation Commission (“LPC”) on September 28, 2015 and approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on October 8, 2015. See Attachments #4 – LPC Meeting Minutes – September 28, 2015, and Attachment #5 – P&Z Meeting Minutes – October 8, 2015, for additional discussion of the design review approvals. Public Benefit Fort Collins provides a high quality of place contributed to by the lively historic downtown and the City’s impressive parks, trails and open space networks. These community assets make Fort Collins an attractive place for both a well-educated workforce and diverse industries. The development of a downtown hotel and the proposed parking structure represent an opportunity to strengthen the existing high quality of place. The Project meets numerous City Plan policy objectives and occurs in the City’s core. Thus, the Project represents an opportunity to achieve not only economic outcomes, but also an opportunity to strengthen the overall community. City Plan Objectives The Project as proposed meets a variety of City Plan objectives, including but not limited to: Economic Health  EH 1.3 – Prioritize Essential Infrastructure/Capital Facilities: Additional parking has been identified through several public outreach efforts including the recent update to the Downtown Plan as a key need. As such, partnering to deliver 216 public parking spaces meets this objective.  EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas: The Old Town Historic District and the River District are both Targeted Redevelopment Areas. Addressing the parking need in these areas will help to facilitate additional redevelopment and meet a current community need for parking.  EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment: One barrier to redevelopment especially in and near the historic core is the lack of parking to meet user demand. This Project provides 216 additional spaces in an area identified as part of the Parking Plan as needing additional parking. Community and Neighborhood Livability  Policy LIV 3.1 – Commit to Providing Capital Facilities: This objective calls for prioritizing existing deficiencies. As parking remains a deficiency, according to the Parking Plan and public outreach, this project addresses a deficiency in the Old Town area.  Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill: The Old Town Historic District and the River District are both Targeted Redevelopment Areas, addressing the parking need in these areas will help to facilitate additional redevelopment and meet a current community need for parking.  Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking: The Project addresses this objective by providing a context sensitive design to the structure skin that reinforces the historic character of nearby buildings and transitions from the Old Town Historic District to the River District.  Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures: The Project design addresses this objective by providing for retail development along two faces of the structure. In addition, the design utilizes screening to reinforce the historic form of nearby buildings. Finally, the design integrates green walls to provide visual relief and introduce nature in the Project in a creative way.  Policy LIV 32.5– Maintain Visual Character: The context sensitive design was very deliberate and intentional in its efforts to reinforce the historic building pattern through screening and material choice.  Policy LIV 32.6 – Encourage Human-Scale Architectural Elements: The design uses retail and green screening to break-up otherwise lengthy facades to create more pedestrian scale. High Performing Government  Policy HI 4.6 – Work with Private Partners: Working with private partners to develop parking was identified as a key strategy in the Parking Plan as well as fulfills this objective of City Plan. City Strategic Plan The Project as proposed meets a variety of City Strategic Plan objectives, including but not limited to:  1.10 – Address neighborhood parking issues: The Project address the identified parking need in the Old Town Historic District and River District.  3.7 – Support sustainable infill and redevelopment to meet climate action strategies: The Project supports infill and redevelopment, which by virtue of revitalizing under- utilized land is itself a sustainable effort.  3.10 – Address Downtown parking issues identified in the adopted Parking Plan: The Project directly responds to the adopted Parking Plan by providing 216 public parking spaces in a location identified as a target within that plan. Downtown Strategic Plan (2004) The Project as proposed meets a variety of Downtown Strategic Plan (2004) objectives, including but not limited to: Principle 1: Protect and manage the Downtown retail/entertainment Core  1.1.1 – Encourage long-term parkers, customers, and employees to better utilize existing Downtown parking structures: This Project increases the available supply of downtown parking making access for long-term parking in structures easier.  1.3.1 – Create a Comprehensive parking management plan for the Downtown core: This Project is a direct reaction to the adopted Parking Plan and the action items contained within that plan. Principle 2: Utilize the Energy from the Core to Leverage and Attract New Development  2.3.1 – Develop, manage and operate parking as essential civic infrastructure, and over time create a “Park Once” environment to sustain low overall parking ratios: This Project helps to achieve this objective by increasing the supply of long-term parking within the Old Town Historic District and Riverside District, which will help to facilitate a “Park Once” environment. Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods The Project as proposed meets a variety of Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods (the “Parking Plan”) objectives, including but not limited to: Principle 6: New Parking Infrastructure  Policy 6.3 – Public-Private Partnerships for the Development of New Parking: This objective encourages the use of Public-Private Partnerships (“PPPs”) to increase the supply of public parking throughout the Downtown. This Project leverages a PPP to add 216 parking spaces to the supply of off-street long-term parking in the Downtown area directly responding to this policy.  Policy 6.6 – Downtown River District Parking Needs: This Project’s proximity to the River District allows for the facility to provide some relief to the parking supply issue in that district. Principle 7: Multimodal Access and Urban Design  Policy 7.3 – Structured Parking: This objective encourages the conversion of surface parking into structure parking. The original Project plan called for a surface parking lot to meet the Fort Collins Hotel’s parking need. The use of a PPP encouraged the conversion of that plan from a surface parking lot into a structured parking facility. Downtown Public Parking Demand The Parking Plan includes a Parking Demand Model that provides insights into future parking needs based on existing and future land uses. This model combined with additional staff analysis generated an estimated of the overall demand for additional public parking in the Downtown area. Table 3 (excerpted from the Parking Plan) summarizes the estimate of future public parking demand over a 10-year period. Table 3 Future Public Parking Demand: 10 Year Horizon The analysis indicates a demand for approximately 910 spaces over the 10-year horizon with an additional 600 spaces needed to support a proposed 1,500 seat performance hall. Therefore, the Project as proposed meets 24 percent of the projected need for all future public parking demand and 43 percent of the demand from background growth in demand as projected by the Parking Demand Model. The Project as proposed also locates the 216 additional public parking spaces in one of the seven identified target areas within the Parking Plan, as shown in Figure 1 (excerpted from the Parking Plan). Therefore, the Project aligns with the needs and locations identified within the Parking Plan for additional public parking. Figure 1 Public Parking Opportunity Areas Partnership Structure As recommended in the Parking Plan, this Project uses a PPP to deliver additional public parking in the Downtown area. In the proposed partnership, the Developer of the Fort Collins Hotel will construct the Project and when completed the Developer will sell the City 216 parking stalls as condominium space. The process is very similar to the approach used to construct the new Foothills Activity Center and the Counciltree Public Library. In addition, this approach allows for the City to utilize tax-exempt financing. Purchase & Sale Agreement City Council will be asked to consider a resolution to authorize the City Manage to execute a purchase and sale agreement for the condo(s) associated with the 216 public parking spaces at its November 17, 2015 City Council meeting. The main points of that agreement are summarized below:  The City must give its approval of the final plans and specifications for construction of the parking structure and the Developer’s itemized cost estimate before construction can commence;  The Developer agrees to deed at least 216 parking spaces within the parking structure to the City included the right to use the land underlying the Parking Structure, and the air rights over the building;  The Developer and the City, at closing, will execute an option agreement that will allow the City, at its discretion, to acquire from the Developer an area of parking on the first floor of the Parking Structure as a separate unit for the construction of retail and in exchange the City would transfer to the Developer a similar number of parking spaces in the public parking area;  Purchase price will be the land cost of ($2,018,835) plus a proportional share of the agreed upon costs for construction but not to exceed a total amount of $7,600,000 On-going Operations & Maintenance A condominium association or similar structure (the “Association”) will oversee the on-going operations and maintenance of the structure. The current plan calls for City’s Parking Services Department to provide on-going operations and maintenance of the entire structure with each individual owner (the City and Developer) responsible for the actual parking operations within their individual portion of the project. The Association Board will be responsible for maintaining the structure to a pre-defined and agreed upon standard. Day-to-day decisions will be governed by a simple majority with major capital expenditures, changes to the Association Bylaws and Covenants, and approval of use within the Retail/Office Flex space being subject to super majority decisions. The City will have proportional representation on the board, which will result in the City having approximately two-thirds control of the Association. Timeline The Project is anticipated to be constructed in the following timeline:  November 17, 2015 – City Council considers Purchase and Sale Agreement  1 st Quarter 2016 – Hotel construction begins using the parking structure site for staging of equipment  2 nd Quarter 2016 – Parking Structure construction begins  2016 – Evaluate, identify, and close financing for acquisition  2016 – Finalize an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Downtown Development Authority  1 st Quarter 2017 – City purchases the 216 public parking spaces Financial Investment Overview City staff has been evaluating the use of either a lease-purchase or certificate of participation financing structure to fund the acquisition cost of the 216 public parking spaces. Project Costs The current estimated Project cost is approximately $11.6 million or $36,000 per stall. This Project cost includes the cost to prepare the site, construct 323 parking spaces, and construction 3,200 square feet of retail core and shell, as shown in Table 4. The parking costs account for 85 percent of the total with retail and site each accounting for between 7 and 8 percent individually. Table 4 Estimated Project Costs by Use The total Project cost is split amongst the various owners in the following manner (a) the retail costs are 100 percent apportioned to the Developer, and (b) the remaining parking and site costs are split amongst the Developer and the City based on a pro-rata share. The result is an estimated City cost of approximately $7.1 million or approximately $33,000 per stall, as shown in Table 5. This equates to 62 percent of the costs or just under two-thirds. Cost Item Stalls Parking Retail Site Total Land $ 1,722,819 $ 153,442 $ 142,573 $ 2,018,835 Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 533,358 $ 47,503 $ 44,139 $ 625,000 Soft Costs $ 1,149,920 $ 102,417 $ 95,163 $ 1,347,500 Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 42,669 $ 3,800 $ 3,531 $ 50,000 Construction Costs $ 6,425,755 $ 572,307 $ 531,769 $ 7,529,831 TOTAL $ 9,874,521 $ 879,470 $ 817,175 $ 11,571,166 $ / Stall 323 $ 30,571 n/a $ 2,530 $ 35,824 $ / Gross Square Feet $ 82.75 $ 274.83 $ 15.27 $ 93.94 Gross Square Feet 119,328 3,200 53,517 123,177 Table 5 Estimated Project Costs by Owner Financing Structure & Assumptions The City is currently paying off the Civic Center Parking structure at a cost of $1,115,000 annually. These payments will conclude June 2018. The Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) has also pledged Tax Increment funds to support repayment of any debt incurred to finance the Project (See Attachment #6). This pledge includes up to $300,000 starting in 2019 and continues through 2031. Using the above cost estimates and assuming a tax exempt financing, the annual debt service for the Project could range from $559,000 to $868,000 annually depending on the term of the financing, as shown in Table 6. Starting in 2019 the DDA funds will be available to pay debt service reducing the General Fund contribution to $259,000 to $568,000 annually. The current approach assumes that General Fund reserves fund the debt service in 2017 and 2018 until the Civic Center Parking structure funds and DDA funds become available. Therefore, the total cost to finance the project could range from $5.8 to $6.3 million depending on financing terms. The total DDA contribution could range from $2.4 to $5.4 million depending on the term of the financing. Cost Item Developer Retail City Total Land $ 617,947 $ 153,442 $ 1,247,445 $ 2,018,835 Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 191,307 $ 47,503 $ 386,190 $ 625,000 Soft Costs $ 412,458 $ 102,417 $ 832,625 $ 1,347,500 Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 15,305 $ 3,800 $ 30,895 $ 50,000 Construction Costs $ 2,304,814 $ 572,307 $ 4,652,710 $ 7,529,831 TOTAL $ 3,541,831 $ 879,470 $ 7,149,865 $ 11,571,166 $ / Stall $ 33,101 n/a $ 33,101 $ 35,824 Stalls 107 n/a 216 323 Table 6 Estimated Financing Costs Option 1 Option 2 Term 10 Years $868,000 Interest Rate 2.5% 4.0% Annual Debt Service $868,000 $559,000 Less: DDA Contribution $300,000 $300,000 Annual General Fund Contribution $568,000 $259,000 Total Financing Cost $8,680,000 $11,180,000 General Fund Reserves (2017-2018) $1,736,000 $1,118,000 Total Financing Cost to the General Fund $6,280,000 $5,780,000 There may be other financing needs within the City between now and the proposed acquisition in the first quarter of 2017. Therefore, this financing could be packaged with other needs to create even greater efficiency in financing terms and interest. The above estimate is provided to illustrate the potential costs of financing the Project and should not be considered the final cost. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan Overview 2. Parking Structure Plans 3. Parking Structure Renderings 4. Landmark Preservation Commission Recommendation 5. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation 6. Downtown Development Authority Revenue Pledge Resolution 7. Staff Presentation 8. LPC Findings of Fact Memo bike racks bike racks Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 8 Overall Site Plan ATTACHMENT #1 Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure X X X X X X W W W W F F F F F F E E T T T T E E E E CHESTNUT STREET DOWNTOWN HOTEL JEFFERSON STREET 20' WIDE ALLEY 242'-0" O.T.O. 175'-0" O.TO. 3200 RETAIL SPACE OPEN AREA FOR POTENTIAL BIKE SHARE 18'-11" 18'-11" 16 SPACES 16 SPACES 6 SPACES 5 SPACES 16'-5" MEP/STORAGE ROOMS 8.3% UP RAMP EXPRESS 13.6% UP RAMP EXPRESS 16'-5" 3'-0" 3'-0" 13 SPACES 5'-6" HOTEL PUBLIC HOTEL 19 SPACES 5 SPACES VAN VAN VAN 1'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" ISOMETRIC EXPRESS RAMP GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL. 25'-8" EL. 15'-0" Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure 1 SECOND LEVEL 6.7%DN RAMP 6.7% UP RAMP 18'-11" 18 SPACES 18'-11" 18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0" 18'-11" 16'-5" 9'-0" 19 SPACES 16 SPACES 9 SPACES 9 SPACES 16 SPACES 14 SPACES 3 SPACES 3 SPACES 242'-0" O.T.O. 175'-0" O.TO. 13.6% DN RAMP EXPRESS 13 SPACES 2 THIRD LEVEL 8 '-9" 16'-5" 18'-11" 6.7%DN RAMP 18'-11" 18'-11" 16'-5" 19 SPACES 16 SPACES 16 SPACES 14 SPACES 9 SPACES 175'-0" O.TO. 13 SPACES 8'-9" 16'-5" 18'-11" 9 SPACES 18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0" 5 SPACES 18'-11" 18 SPACES 9'-0" ISOMETRIC EXPRESS RAMP GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL. 25'-8" EL. 15'-0" EL. 0'-0" FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LEGEND 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans Chestnut Street Elevation Building signage and Identification to match neigh- boring City parking structures to provide a clear wayfinding system within Downtown context. Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 17 BRICK (GARDEN BLEND- SMOOTH) PRE-CAST (LIGHT RED - SMOOTH & TEX- TURED) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 3 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 4 INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (PREWEATHERED ZINC) PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING /(9(/   /(9(/   /(9(/       $/80,1,806725()5217 $/80,1,80 6725()5217 %5,&. 9(1((5 *$5$*((175$1&( *$/9$1,=(' 67((/&&+$11(/ *$/9$1,=('67((//$77,&(72 6833257*5((16&5((1 6<67(09,1(675(//,6 1$785$/9,1(62132:'(5 &2$7('0(6+6&5((1 ,17(*5$/&2/25 35(&$67 &21&5(7( 63$1'5(/ 0(7$/&/$'',1* 0(7$/*5$7(:,7+ *$/9$1,=('67((/ Old Firehouse Alley Elevation Bay patterns along alley are inspired by traditional firehouse truck bays. Roll-up glass garage doors, captured between a masonry frame will activate the ground floor. Alley art will activate the spandrels above the bays and provide visual interest for hotel guests and pedestrians. Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 18 /(9(/   /(9(/   /(9(/   $ % & ' ( ) * + *$/9$1,=('67((//$77,&(72 6833257*5((16&5((1 6<67(09,1(675(//,6 1$785$/9,1(621 32:'(5&2$7('0(6+ 6&5((1 ,17(5/2&.,1* 0(7$/3$1(/ =,1& 720$7&++27(/ $/80,1,80 6725()5217 %5,&.9(1((5 0(7$/3$1(/ *$/9$1,=('67((/&&+$11(/ ,17(*5$/&2/25 35(&$67&21&5(7( 63$1'5(/ 6725()5217 '2257<3 23(5$%/(29(5+($' '2257<3 6725()5217 :,1'2: &21&5(7( %$6( (;7(5,253/$67(5),1,6+3$1(/72 5(&(,9($//(<$577<3%$<6  0(7$/&&+$11(/ 35(),1,6+('*$/9$1,=('0(7$/ &23,1* 6287+6&$/(    )  ,5(+286($//(< BRICK (GARDEN BLEND- SMOOTH) PRE-CAST (LIGHT RED - SMOOTH & TEX- TURED) Facing Linden Street Elevation Secorndary facades within the Downtown and Civic Center Cores are rendered in simple, modest materials and finishes (painted precast and stucco finish- es). The proposed material selections are consistent with historic patterns of Downtown Fort Collins - (active public edges and passive secondary edges). Importantly, the rich material palete found on the primary facades shall “turn the corner” into the secondary facades to wrap the edges Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 19 /(9(/   /(9(/   /(9(/   $/80,1,806725()5217     *$/9$1,=('67((//$77,&(72 6833257*5((16&5((1 6<67(09,1(675(//,6 ,17(*5$/&2/25 35(&$67&21&5(7( 63$1'5(/ %5,&.9(1((521 &0867(0:$// :35(&$67&$3   *$/9$1,=('67((/&&+$11(/ 1$785$/9,1(62132:'(5 &2$7('0(6+6&5((1 23(5$%/(6725()5217'2257238%/,& :$< 5$0383%(+,1' :6&$(/(67     BRICK (GARDEN BLEND- SMOOTH) PRE-CAST (LIGHT RED - SMOOTH & TEX- TURED) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 3 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 4 INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (PREWEATHERED ZINC) PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING The New Parking Structure shares a few of the following attributes and consistent fa- cade character found along historic facades along Jefferson Street (one block away): Base / Middle / Top Variety in Single Facade: Bay Articulation / Punched Windows Consistent Material Palette Conveys the traditional size of historic buildings as perceived from street level Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 20 /(9(/   /(9(/   /(9(/   + * ) ( ' & % $ %5,&. 9(1((5 3(5)25$7('0(7$/*5$7(:*$/9$1,=(' 67((/)5$0( 72%(5(3/$&(':,7+6725()5217 :,1'2:6$1''2256:+(1)8785( 5(7$,/2)),&(,6%8,/7287 3(5)25$7('0(7$/ *5$7(:,7+ *$/9$1,=('67((/ )5$0( ,17(*5$/&2/25 35(&$67 &21&5(7( 63$1'5(/ $/80,1,80 6725()5217 *$/9$1,=('67((/ &&+$11(/ 0(7$/&&+$11(/ 35(),1,6+('*$/9$1,=('0(7$/&23,1* &21&5(7(3/$17(5:)/2:(56 0(7$/3$1(/ $/9$1,=('67((/ $77,&(726833257 *5((16&5((1 <67(09,1(6 $785$/9,1(621 2:'(5&2$7(' (6+6&5((1 127&+$73$1(/-2,17 :,7+*$/9$1,=('0(7$/ 5$,/,1*  1257+6&$/(    -  ())(5621675((7 Jefferson Street Elevation BRICK (GARDEN BLEND- SMOOTH) PRE-CAST (LIGHT RED - SMOOTH & TEX- TURED)   One Building broken into smaller masses Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 21 Looking Down Chestnut Street 5.7 The overall height of a new building s h o u l d b e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e historic district. A building height ATTACHMENT #3 Preweathered zinc panels to match adjacent hotel *final alley art (TBD) 5.10 Establish a sense of human scale in a building design. ›› Use vertical and horizontal articulation techniques to reduce the apparent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 22 Looking Down Old Firehouse Alley ATTACHMENT #3 Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 23 New Building  Variety in single facade: 5.6 Convey the traditional size of historic buildings in new construction as it is perceived at the street level. Looking Down Jefferson Street ATTACHMENT #3 What If? We collaborate with CSU to develop a “vertical vine testing ground”, similar to Denver Botanical Gardens & Denver Zoo? Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure LPC Submittal page 24 Looking Down Chestnut Street ATTACHMENT #3 City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 28, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system Tom Leeson Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Staff Liaison, PDT Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting September 28, 2015 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Ernest, Sladek, Wallace ABSENT: Zink, Gensmer and Lingle (all excused) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE - RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Located at 363 Jefferson Street, this project proposes a 323 stall parking garage consisting of 83,847 square foot (3,200 mixed use and 80,647 square foot parking area). The project will require a Type II (Planning & Zoning Board) Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their October 14, 2015 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 28, 2015 hearing. The associated Downtown Hotel project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at a work session held on June 10, 2015, during which time the Commission discussed the conceptual proposal of a garage structure. At tonight’s meeting, the applicants are requesting a final review of the project, and a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan, Bohemian Companies Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Lou Bieker with 4240 Architecture in Denver gave the Applicant presentation, noting that it had been modified since the publication of the agenda packet, and a copy of the current presentation was submitted into the record. He explained that Bohemian Companies is one of the Applicants, but the City of Fort Collins and the DDA are really his clients for the parking structure. Photos of the current street views were displayed. Applicable sections of the River District Design Guidelines were noted. The Applicant spoke about the parking garage providing a bridge between Old Town and the River District, and the importance of relating to both in its design. City guidelines for street trees have been followed. Retail space is planned along the alley, and may be also incorporated into the Jefferson Street side in the future. The ramping system is located in the interior of the structure, so as not to be visible from the street. He discussed the similarities of the materials to those used in the hotel, specifically the brick and metal screening elements. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Hard copies of the Commission’s findings with regard to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel from the September 9, 2015 meeting were distributed to the Members by Staff for reference. Chair Sladek directed that the Commission first discuss adjacencies to the project. A Member inquired about the “Quonset hut” buildings on Jefferson. Staff said they were surveyed about 10 years ago, and that some were determined to be potentially eligible at that time, and others were not. However, there has not been a more recent review conducted. Members asked about the buildings across Jefferson, and since there were no photos of that area included in the packet, Staff displayed imagery from Google Maps Street View for the Commission. A Member expressed interested in having information about the dates those structures were built, but that information was unavailable. The Member said the process did not need to be delayed for that reason, but that it would be nice to have that kind of information in the future. Chair Sladek complimented the design, saying he appreciated the Applicant’s thoughtful analysis, which went beyond the standards and requirements, resulting in a well-conceived project. He also stated that it would be helpful to have additional drawings showing the garages in relation to some of these buildings, but that was not necessary to their decision. The Commission discussed how to craft the wording for the motion, findings of fact and adjacencies, drawing heavily from the handout of the findings from the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel. Members discussed the bridge formed by the project between the River District and the Walnut Street area. After some clarification from Mr. Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney, the Commission added the River District to the description of the project’s adjacencies. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, approval of the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage project located at 363 Jefferson Street, with the following findings of fact: 1. The adjacencies defined for the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel project at the September 9, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission also apply to this project, with the addition of the River District. City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 28, 2015 2. The project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The building uses historically sensitive materials and colors of materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. b. The project uses compatible solid to void pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. c. The pedestrian scale of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. Ms. Wallace seconded. Ms. Dunn stated that she didn’t see the project as compatible to the neighboring district, based on Land Use Code 3.4.7, specifically with regard to the cornice line and metal materials. Motion passed 4-1, with Dunn dissenting. [Timestamp: 6:51 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel Project Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2015 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Seth Lorson, City Planner FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel Project. As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Commission’s Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the Downtown Hotel is located adjacent to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Armory Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers; additionally, it is adjacent to properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. 2) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the Downtown Hotel, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts: That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like adjacent historic buildings. b. The project uses massing location and appropriate step-backs to mitigate height, relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block. c. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. d. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. 3) The Commission specifically discussed in its deliberations the applicants’ request for modifications to two Standards, relative to the building’s height and setback, specifically: Section 4.16(D)(2)(a), which permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet; and Section 4.16(D)(4)(a), which requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. - 2 - 4) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 8-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the development proposal for the Fort Collins Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing October 8, 2015 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Olson, Wilkinson, Shepard, Burnett, Holland, Mapes, Lorson, Langenberger, Virata, Ragasa and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 6 Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to section 3.8.30(F)(1) of the Land Use Code to allow a portion on the required 25’ buffer yard abutting single-family homes to be reduced to 20’ based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Affinity at Fort Collins PDP #150010 based on the findings of fact found on page 10 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. The Board took a break at 7:55pm and resumed at 8:05pm. Project: Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Project Description: This project proposes to construct a 3-level mixed-use parking garage with 325 parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The parking garage is proposed as a public-private partnership between the City of Fort Collins, the Downtown Development Authority, and the developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality). 113 parking spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins Hotel (approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 10, 2015) and 212 parking spaces will be public parking managed by the City. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that two items had been received since the work session: the LPC findings of fact and conclusion from their September 28th hearing recommending approval, and an updated modification request from 4240 Architecture, Inc., regarding the size of the parking stalls. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Lorson gave a brief overview of the project, showing slides of the site map, renderings and the overall project dimensions. He stated that the right-of-way improvements are consistent with those pertaining to the Fort Collins Hotel. He also reviewed the modification request details, answering some questions that were previously brought up at the work session regarding the number of parking spaces used seasonally by existing Fort Collins garages and showing capacity images of each. Lou Bieker, 4240 Architecture, also reviewed some of the major points of the project, incorporating the role of the hotel and the River District into the overall design. He also illustrated some of the colors and textures planned for the hotel, as well as the external landscaping plans for the project. Public Input None noted. Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 7 Board Questions and Staff Response Board members asked about the future occupation of the associated retail spaces, the modification impacts, and long- and short-term parking needs of patrons. Larry Hofmockel, with Walker Parking Consultants, stated that compliance with the City code would require elimination of an entire row of the parking spaces planned; therefore, the modification is important. He added that the hotel-level parking is considered long-term parking. There was in-depth discussion about the size of parking spaces with respect to the various hotel levels and the parking needs. Josh Birks, Economic Health Director for COFC, informed the group that his team has worked with Parking Services regarding the modifications to standards and he believes they are consistent with the other facilities in town. Board members also asked about the parking stall degrees relative to the distance when accessing the stall and the justification for needing 20 feet for pulling out of an angled stall (pertains to the request for modification for angled drive aisle standards). Planner Lorson suggested that perhaps the code should be updated to better reflect the standards and requirements. Board members also asked who owns this structure for future maintenance and security. Mr. Birks responded that there are several owners of the parking areas (FC Hotel, Bohemian, and the COFC). Each owner will operate will operate different floors, and a Condo Association will be established to specify the maintenance of garage. Board members inquired about the progress in wayfinding, and Planner Lorson responded that there would not be wayfinding established with this application. He acknowledged that this is currently part of the Downtown Plan discussion. He added that the code standards have been reviewed extensively and tests were done to ensure larger vehicles would be accommodated. Chair Carpenter asked about the safety factors for drive aisle widths from an auto and a pedestrian standpoint. Board members asked about the projected bike parking and whether alternative compliance was being proposed and whether the P&Z Board would be the final decision maker for this project. The P&Z Board is the final decision maker; however, it will be heard by the City Council eventually from a legislative standpoint. Mr. Bieker also confirmed that this will be a public parking facility. Board Deliberation Each Board member presented their opinion: Chair Carpenter supports; Member Hart supports but has some concerns with the modifications; Member Hobbs supports, especially the public/private partnership, but still has some concern with the proximity to the transient population; Member Schneider does not support the modification related to large and small vehicles, coupled with the low demand for this parking garage; Vice Chair Kirkpatrick supports and would like to see a future review of the land use code standards for parking; Member Hansen supports this project; and Member Heinz supports but still has concerns over whether another parking garage is needed. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to subsection 3.22(L) of the Land Use Code related to the size of parking spaces based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 6:1 with Member Schneider dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PDP#150018 based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. 1 Downtown Hotel Parking Structure Partnership Mike Beckstead, CFO; & Josh Birks, Economic Health Director 10-26-2015 Council Finance Direction Requested 2 • Does Council Finance Have Additional Questions of Staff? • Is Council Finance Supportive of Bringing This Proposal to Council on November 17th ? Connection to Strategic Plans 3 Proposed Public/Private Partnership Consistent with Strategic Goals Parking Plan Summary 4 Parking Plan Identified This Location as a Need • Parking Plan completed in 2013 • Identified 1,500 additional spaces required over next 10 years • Further analysis identified six structured parking facilities in a ring around Old Town • A parking structure on Chestnut was one of the six identified locations for structured parking • Hotel and associated parking needs created opportunity for a public/private partnership Overall Site Plan 5 • Retail Along Old Fire House Alley • Future Retail along Jefferson Street • Streetscape Improvements to Chestnut and Jefferson Street • Improvements to Old Fire House Alley • Pedestrian Connection between Old Fire House Alley and Jefferson Street 6 Parking Garage Overview Tier Standard Van Accessible Accessible Total Ground 78 3 3 84 Second 117 0 3 120 Third 117 0 2 119 Total 312 3 8 323 Tier Hotel Public Total Ground 84 0 86 Second 23 97 120 Third 0 119 119 Total 107 216 323 7 View from Chestnut looking at Alley 8 View looking down Old Firehouse Alley 9 View from Jefferson looking South Downtown Parking Structure Overview 10 PPP… City to Own Approximately 216 Spaces for Public Use • Condo Ownership – Bohemian 1/3 (first floor) and City 2/3 • Bohemian/Hotel Company Builds the Parking Structure • City Purchases Specific Spaces at Completion • Property Owners Agreement Governs Operations & Maintenance • City Parking Services operates and maintains • Anticipated Cost - $11.5M = $35.6k per space including land DDA Support 11 DDA - Strong Support for Parking Structure • Responds to demand for new parking space needs as identified in 2013 Parking Plan  Make it Happen: designed build a circulation system, minimize auto/pedestrian conflicts, maximize convenience, solve a market use/mismatch.  Make it Happen Sooner: public infrastructure upgrade • Supports the most flexible and exciting option for a hybrid-street design on the 200 Block of Linden Street  Makes it Better: place-making • Corresponds with DDA’s desire to see development of a downtown hotel  Make it Happen: solve a market use/mismatch.  Make it Happen Sooner: reduce the risk of pioneering investment Timeline 12 Project Approval QIV 2015…. Property Purchase Early 2017 QIV QI-2016 QII QIII QIV QI-2017 P&Z Oct 9th CFC Oct 26th Council Nov 17th • Purchase Agreement • O&M Agreement Hotel Construction Begins Parking Structure Construction Begins City Property Purchase Hotel Opens • Close Debt Financing • Finalize DDA IGA Downtown Parking Structure Financing 13 Debt Service Available Within Existing Annual Debt Service in 2019…. Utilize One-Time Revenue or Reserves in 2017 & 2018 • Current Planning Number - $11.5M total cost, City cost $7.1M • Annual Debt Service • 10 Years @ 2.5% = $ 868k • 20 Years @ 4.0% = $ 559k • Annual On-Going Funding Sources • Current Civic Center Parking Debt Service – beginning in 2019 • Last payment June 2018 • City portion $1,115k (includes 215 N. Mason) • DDA Support $ 275k - $300k - beginning in 2019 • DDA Resolution 2015-05 documents commitment • Utilize GF reserves 2017 - 2018 Purchase Agreement Summary 14 City to have construction cost oversight and maximum price • City approval of the final plans and itemized cost estimate before construction can commence • Developer to deed at least 216 parking spaces • Developer and City will execute an option agreement for future retail • Purchase price equals land cost ($2,018,835) plus share of costs for construction not to exceed $7,600,000 Council Finance Direction Requested 15 • Does Council Finance Have Additional Questions of Staff? • Is Council Finance Supportive of Bringing This Proposal to Council on November 17th ? 16 Back-Up Information Finance – Next 6 Months or Wait a Year 17 Rate Movement Difficult to Predict…. Recommend Locking in on Today’s Lower Rates • Finance Q1 2016 & Lock in Low Rates OR • Finance Late in 2016 and Avoid 9-12 Months Interest • Staff Analysis – Rate Sensitivity • Assumptions: • Current 10 year rates - 2.25% • Current Interest Earnings – 1.25% • Borrowing 12 months apart • NPV of Cash flow Indicates If Rates Move More Than 60 Basis Points Better to Finance Now Cost Detail Table 1 – Cost by Use 18 Cost Item Stalls Parking Retail Site Total Land $ 1,722,819 $ 153,442 $ 142,573 $ 2,018,835 Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 533,358 $ 47,503 $ 44,139 $ 625,000 Soft Costs $ 1,149,920 $ 102,417 $ 95,163 $ 1,347,500 Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 42,669 $ 3,800 $ 3,531 $ 50,000 Construction Costs $ 6,425,755 $ 572,307 $ 531,769 $ 7,529,831 TOTAL $ 9,874,521 $ 879,470 $ 817,175 $ 11,571,166 $ / Stall 323 $ 30,571 n/a $ 2,530 $ 35,824 $ / Gross Square Feet $ 82.75 $ 274.83 $ 15.27 $ 93.94 Gross Square Feet 119,328 3,200 53,517 123,177 Cost Detail Table 2 – Cost by Owner 19 Cost Item Developer Retail City Total Land $ 617,947 $ 153,442 $ 1,247,445 $ 2,018,835 Permit Fees/Development Fees $ 191,307 $ 47,503 $ 386,190 $ 625,000 Soft Costs $ 412,458 $ 102,417 $ 832,625 $ 1,347,500 Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $ 15,305 $ 3,800 $ 30,895 $ 50,000 Construction Costs $ 2,304,814 $ 572,307 $ 4,652,710 $ 7,529,831 TOTAL $ 3,541,831 $ 879,470 $ 7,149,865 $ 11,571,166 $ / Stall $ 33,101 n/a $ 33,101 $ 35,824 Stalls 107 n/a 216 323 Garage Plans – Floors 2 & 3 20 2nd Floor 3rd Floor COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Date: October 26, 2015 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Sales Tax Recapture Initiative – Opportunities Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council identified a Sales Tax Recapture Initiative in their Priorities for 2015. The Council Finance Committee had an initial conversation regarding the scope in June. The Committee clarified the desire to evaluate and understand the opportunity for Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGA”) with adjacent communities in order to share sales tax revenue from commercial development. As a precursor to those discussions staff has prepared an analysis of commercial sites along the edge of the community that represent the opportunity for retail development that could generate sales tax revenue to share through an IGA. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Council Finance Committee agree with the identified opportunity sites? And the identified communities to approach? 2. Does the Council Finance Committee need additional information to inform the next steps of this initiative? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council developed a number of priorities at their retreat in May 2015. These priorities include a Sales Tax Recapture Initiative. This initiative was clarified to evaluate and understand the opportunity for Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGA”) with adjacent communities in order to share sales tax revenue from commercial development. Staff attempted to answer a number of questions through an initial analysis of opportunity sites. These questions included: 1. Are there specific areas to target/prioritize for revenue sharing agreements? 2. What is revenue should be subject to sharing? Sales tax revenue only? Property tax? Both? 3. Do we entertain making sharing agreements retroactive? Meaning they apply to existing development in identified areas? 4. What distance is reasonable to include in an area specific revenue sharing agreement? To begin the analysis, staff worked with the Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) department to prepare map identifying all vacant commercial property within a quarter-mile of the Growth Management Area (“GMA”) boundary (Attachment #1 – Commercial Properties Near GMA Boundary). These properties represent opportunities for future commercial or retail development. Therefore, they provide an indication of potential target locations for revenue sharing agreements. As staff evaluated the potential target locations for revenue sharing agreements it was concluded that a “reason” would be needed to draw in the participation of the adjacent community. The “reason” would likely need to provide mutual benefit, such as a major capital improvement. In answering the questions listed above, staff further refined the vacant properties in the following ways:  Revenue to include in sharing agreement: Both sales and property tax revenue from commercial development adjacent to the Highway 392/Interstate 25 intersection were included in the IGA; since the intent was to offset a portion of the intersection construction costs. This creates a precedent for structuring agreements to include more than just sales tax revenue, specifically if the revenue is to offset the cost of a mutually beneficial capital improvement. Therefore, target areas were not limited to areas where retail development is an allowed use.  Retroactive Agreements: Staff concluded that attempting to make revenue sharing agreements retroactive was not likely to be well received by potential partners. Therefore, areas where a significant portion of the commercial development has already occurred were eliminated from the list of potential targets.  Distance to include: Staff concluded that this could vary depending on the “reason” for sharing revenue. The initial analysis identified property that was within a quarter-mile of the GMA boundary. Additionally, staff concluded there were a significant community separation exists between GMAs it was unlikely that revenue sharing would be embraced by the adjacent community. Therefore, areas where the individual community GMAs did not create a significant overlap were eliminated from the target list. The result is a relatively narrow list of target locations and adjacent communities. All of the potential locations are listed below, including those that were eliminated, along with a brief discussion: 1. South College Avenue: Limited number of available commercial properties; GMA boundaries diverge by over a half mile; Significant existing development in the Walmart Supercenter which would be excluded from a sharing agreement reducing the benefit to Fort Collins; ELIMINATED 2. Highway 392 & I-25: Already has a sharing agreement; ELIMINATED 3. Harmony Road & I-25: Modest number of available commercial properties; GMA boundaries are immediately adjacent; Significant existing development on east side which would be excluded from a sharing agreement reducing the benefit to Fort Collins; ELMINATED 4. Prospect Road & I-25: Relatively undeveloped intersection with significant available commercial properties; GMA boundaries are immediately adjacent; clear mutual benefit if revenue sharing supports intersection improvement; TARGETED 5. Mulberry Road & I-25: Limited number of available commercial properties; Modest opportunities for redevelopment; GMA boundaries are immediately adjacent; clear mutual benefit if revenue sharing supports intersection improvement; TARGETED 6. Mountain Vista & I-25: Relatively undeveloped intersection with significant available commercial properties; GMA boundaries are immediately adjacent; clear mutual benefit if revenue sharing support intersection improvement; TARGETED All of the Targeted Areas listed above include one adjacent community the Town of Timnath. Therefore, staff recommends opening discussions with Timnath regarding revenue sharing with the purpose of using shared revenues to help offset construction costs for each of the three I-25 intersections. ATTACHMENTS 1. Commercial Properties Near GMA Boundary – GIS Map, August 19, 2015 2. Staff Presentation Weld County Larimer County TLearkrey CLoabkeb RTeimsenravtohir Fossil ReseCrvroeierk Trilby H o r s e t o o t h R e s e r v o i r Cache La Poudre River Shields Taft Hill College Overland Trail Mulberry Prospect Drake Horsetooth Timberline Harmony Vine ¦¨§25 Lemay ¤£ 287 ¤£287 Willox Mountain Vista Ziegler Douglas CR 52 Carpenter Country Club SH 392 LindLeankmeeier Pond Long RWeisnedrsvoorir SH 1 CR 56 SH 14 CR 5 CR 38E ¦¨§25 CR 54G CR 58 CR 30 CR 3 WCR 1 CR 23 Cache La Poudre River Loveland Windsor Timnath La Porte Wellington Bellvue Carpenter Commercial City Properties of Fort Near Collins GMA Boundary Fort Collins GMA Other City GMA Planning Area City Limits 1 Sales Tax Recapture Initiative – Target Areas Mike Beckstead, CFO; & Josh Birks, Economic Health Director 10-26-2015 General Direction Sought 1. Does the Council Finance Committee agree with the identified opportunity sites? And the identified communities to approach? 2. Does the Council Finance Committee need additional information to inform the next steps of the initiative? 2 Considerations of Analysis 1. Property types to include – Revenues to share? Sales Tax? Property Tax? Both?  Highway 392/I-25 precedence suggest both could be included in a revenue sharing agreement intended to fund a mutually beneficial improvement 2. Level of existing development – Should agreements be retroactive?  Retroactive agreements are unlikely; therefore significant levels of existing development will limit the benefit of a revenue sharing agreement 3. Extent of revenue sharing area – How far into each community should a revenue sharing area extend?  May vary depending on the use of the shared revenue 3 Evaluated Areas 1. South College Avenue – Limited available property; Existing development; Distance between GMAs – ELIMINATED 2. Highway 392 & I-25 – Agreement existing – ELIMINATED 3. Harmony Road & I-25 – Modest amount of available property; Existing development – ELIMINATED 4. Prospect Road & I-25 – Available property; Adjacent GMAs; Intersection needing improvement – TARGETED 5. Mulberry Road & I-25 – Available property and redevelopment; Adjacent GMAs; Intersection needing improvement – TARGETED 6. Mountain Vista & I-25 – Available property; Adjacent GMAs; Intersection needing improvement - TARGETED 4 General Direction Sought 1. Does the Council Finance Committee agree with the identified opportunity sites? And the identified communities to approach? 2. Does the Council Finance Committee need additional information to inform the next steps of the initiative? 5 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: John Voss, Controller Date: October 26, 2015 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION –New Pension Funding Policy and Metro District Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – At the July meeting the Council Finance Committee reviewed the funding status of the pension plan. The plan to fully fund the General Employees Retirement Plan (GERP) by contributing an additional $1.12 million until the 100% funded. The Committee request the plan is formalized in a policy with additional parameters on when further actions should be taken regarding funding. The attached Pension Funding policy captures the requested parameters. The other policy to consider is an existing policy that was first developed and approved in 2008 - the Metro District Policy. At that time no Metro Districts existed and a proposal to create one was in the works. The Council Finance Committee wanted a policy to guide them before considering any proposals. Staff recommends no changes to the existing Metro District Policy. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Is the Pension Funding policy ready to bring to City Council for adoption? 2. Is the Metro District policy satisfactory as is and no changes are needed? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION – Several years ago staff and CFC agreed to formally review all Council approved financial policies every three years. The Metro District Policy is the last of the existing policies to be considered. Beginning next year the rotation will begin again and 2-4 policies will be reviewed each year. ATTACHMENTS Metro District Policy10 New Pension Funding Policy 11 Financial Management Policy 10 Metro District Issue Date: 7/9/2008 Version: 1 Issued by: Josh Birks Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 1 10.1 Introduction A. The City establishes the following as its Special District policy for (i) the review and approval or disapproval of Service Plans, including any amendment thereof, for the creation of a Metropolitan District ("District") pursuant to Title 32, Article 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Act"); and (ii) for the regulation of those Districts. This Policy is intended as a guide only. Nothing in this document is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit the discretion of City Council, which retains full discretion and authority regarding the terms and limitations of all District Service Plans B. The City generally supports the formation of a District where it is demonstrated that a District is needed to provide public improvements to local development and will result in enhanced benefits to existing or future business owners and/or residents of the City and the District, whether such enhanced benefits are provided by the District or by the entity developing the District because the District exists to provide public improvements. A District may be permitted to conduct ongoing operations and maintenance activities where it can be demonstrated that having the District provide operations and maintenance is in the best interest of the City and the existing or future taxpayers of the District. C. For a District whose primary revenue source is property taxes, and in the absence of special circumstances, District formation will not be favorably received where the Objective: To provide guidelines and parameters to be considered when reviewing, developing and approving service plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts. Applicability: Applies to all Metro Districts formed by the City of Fort Collins Authorized by: City Council Resolution 2008-069 Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 2 future assessed value of all property within the District at full build-out is projected to be less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The ten million dollar assessed valuation threshold, for Districts whose primary revenue source is property taxes, will increase biennially after 2008 to adjust for increases in the Consumer Price Index for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Special circumstances and special cause must be demonstrated for exceptions to be granted. D. All Districts and all persons or entities developing property within a District must comply with all provisions of the City Code and Land Use Code and all related standards. E. The City generally supports the formation of a District where the projected use is primarily commercial. The City will not approve a Service Plan proposing a residential use only. However, mixed use may be considered as long as the Service Plan clearly identifies that the project is predominately commercial. "Predominately commercial" as used in this Policy shall mean that the assessed value derived from non-residential usage is no less than 90% of the assessed value of the entire project. The actual market value of the project may differ from the assessed value for the project. F. A District, when properly structured, can enhance the quality of development in the City. The City is receptive to District formation as an instrument to provide competitive financing for projects, build better and enhanced infrastructure, and, where needed, create a quasi-governmental entity to provide essential improvements which are otherwise not available and could not be practically provided by the City or any other existing municipal or quasi- municipal entity, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which could be construed as "competing governments." Formation of a District will not be favorably received if the District will be used to fund basic infrastructure improvements normally required of new development. 10.2 Service Plans A. Any Service Plan submitted to the City for approval must comply with all state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including the Act. B. The Service Plan must include all information required by the Act. C. The Service Plan must enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the District. Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly needed will not be approved in the Service Plan. D. Any intergovernmental agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the District to likely be required, to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan must provide that execution of intergovernmental agreements which are likely to cause a substantial increase in the District’s budget and are not Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 3 described in the Service Plan will require the prior approval of City Council. E. The Service Plan must include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of property from, the District’s boundaries known at the time of the submittal of the Service Plan. The Service Plan must provide that inclusions or exclusions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require the prior approval of City Council. F. The Service Plan must describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan must provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require the prior approval of City Council. G. The Service Plan must contain language that prohibits the District from using powers of eminent domain. However, the City may choose to exercise its powers of eminent domain to construct public improvements within the District in which case the District and City will enter into an intergovernmental agreement concerning the public improvement and funding for the use of eminent domain. H. The Service Plan must restrict the District's total mill levy authorization for both debt service and operations and maintenance to forty (40) mills (the "Maximum Mill Levy"), subject to adjustment as provided below. It is anticipated that a portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be utilized by the District to fund operations and maintenance functions, including customary administrative expenses incurred in operating the District such as accounting and legal expenses and otherwise complying with applicable reporting requirements. The District's Board of Directors will have full discretion to determine what portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be levied for debt service and what portion for operations and maintenance. For example, a District levying 30 mills for debt service and 5 mills for operations would be in compliance, as would a District levying 20 mills for debt service and 15 mills for operations. In both examples, the total mill levy of the Districts would be 35 mills, which is within the Maximum Mill Levy. The Maximum Mill Levy may be adjustable from the base year of 2008; provided, however, that in the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the base year of 2008, the mill levy limitation applicable to such debt may be increased or decreased to reflect those changes, the increases or decreases to be determined by the District Board in good faith (that determination to be binding and final), so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the District's mill levy, as adjusted, for changes occurring after January 1, 2008, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of the changes. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. I. The Service Plan must include Debt and operating financial projections prepared by an investment banking firm or financial advisor qualified to make such projections (the "Financial Plan"). The financial firm must be listed in the Bond Buyers Marketplace or, in the City's sole discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections. The Financial Plan must include debt issuance and service schedules and Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 4 calculations establishing the District's projected maximum debt capacity (the "Total Debt Limitation") based on assumptions of (i) the projected interest rate on the debt to be issued by the District; (ii) the projected assessed valuation of the property within the District; and (iii) the projected rate of absorption of the assessed valuation within the District.· These assumptions must use market-based, market- comparable valuation and absorption data and may use an annual inflation rate of three percent (3%) or the Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12 month period for the Denver- Boulder- Greeley statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, whichever is greater. The Total Debt Limitation set forth in the Service Plan must not exceed 100% of the projected maximum debt capacity as shown in the Financial Plan. The Financial Plan must also include foreseeable administrative and operation and maintenance costs. J. If, after the Service Plan is approved, the State Legislature includes additional powers or grants new or broader powers for Districts by amendment of Part 10 of Article 1, Title 32, C.R.S., no such powers will be available to or exercised by an existing District without the prior approval of the City Council. K. Every Service Plan must include, in addition to all materials, plans and reports required by the Act, an Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP"). This PDP must include, at a minimum, a map or maps, and construction drawings of such scale, detail and size as required by the Planning Department, providing an illustration of public improvements proposed to be built, acquired or financed by the District, along with a written narrative and description of those items and a general description of the District's proposed role with regard to the same. Due to the preliminary nature of the PDP, the Service Plan must indicate that the City's approval of the PDP shall not bind the City's reviewing and making land use approvals. Approval of the PDP must precede or be concurrent with approval of the Service Plan. L. Development Fees must not be imposed by the District unless the Development Fees are identified with particularity in the Service Plan and the Financial Plan. 10.3 Bonded Indebtedness A. Original issuance of bonded indebtedness by the District prior to build-out is limited to that debt which can be sized, serviced and defeased with no more than the Maximum Mill Levy as described in Paragraph H of the Service Plans Section above. B. The District will be limited to issuing new debt as provided in the Financial Plan. In the absence of evidence that development phasing will be of a duration that makes it impracticable to issue all debt within a fifteen-year period, or other special circumstances, the Service Plan must provide that all new debt will be issued within a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the District's formation. Debt issued by the District will have a maximum maturity of thirty (30) years for each series of debt. The restrictions on issuance will not pertain to refundings, but the thirty-year maximum maturity does apply to refundings unless such refundings result in a net present value savings as set forth in Section 11-56-101, et seq., C.R.S., and are otherwise Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 5 permitted by law. 10.4 Multiple-District Structures A. It is the intent of the City that citizen/resident control of Districts is encouraged to occur as early as possible. B. Multiple-District structures may be proposed in the following situations: 1. The projected absorption of the project and the public improvements to be financed are reasonably projected to occur over an extended period of time after the date of organization of the District. 2. The project has varying projected uses, such as residential and commercial. Service Plans proposing mixed use must, at a minimum, reflect that 90% of the assessed value is derived from non-residential usage. The actual market value of the project may differ greatly from the 90% assessed value for non-residential. C. The Service Plan must fully describe the need, reasoning and mechanics if a Multiple-District structure is proposed. 10.5 Dissolution of District The Service Plan must provide for dissolution of the District, and all debts and financial obligations of the District must be defeased as well, no more than 40 years after the Service Plan is initially approved. Additionally, the Service Plan must provide that the District is obligated to obtain the approval of the City Council 20 years after organization of the District (and every ten (10) years thereafter) in order to continue providing operations and maintenance services; provided, however, that failure to obtain such approval shall not be considered a material modification unless such approval is not obtained forty-five (45) days after written notice to the District by the City of the need to request such approval. 10.6 Default of District A. In the event that a District fails to pay its debt when due or defaults in the performance of any obligation that has been agreed to between the District and the City, which obligation has been identified by the City in writing as a material obligation, and such default is continuing after the delivery of notice thereof to the District and the expiration of any cure periods, the District shall be precluded from issuing additional debt except refunding bonds issued to avoid or to cure a payment default, without the prior approval of the City Council. B. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction has made a final, unappealable determination that a District has defaulted on any of its financial obligations, the Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 6 District will be precluded from issuing additional debt, except to refund or refinance a financial obligation for the purpose of avoiding or curing a default, without receiving written permission from the City Council following a public hearing on the matter. C. In the event of a material modification of the Service Plan, the City and the electors of the District will be entitled to exercise their respective rights under the Act. Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification include without limitation: 1. actions or failures to act that create greater financial risk or burden; 2. performance of a service or function or acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to a service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan; and 3. failure to perform a service or function or acquire a facility required by the Service Plan. Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation changes in quantities of facilities or equipment, immaterial cost differences, and actions expressly authorized in the Service Plan. Following formation of the District, the District's Board of Directors may, from time to time, submit a letter to the City Manager, or designee, outlining the proposed actions of the District for which the Board of Directors is unclear as to whether a Service Plan amendment is required. The City Manager, or designee, will determine whether an amendment to the Service Plan is required under the provisions of this Policy and Section 32-1-207, C.R.S., and then provide a copy of the determination to the District's Board of Directors. 10.7 Annual Report A. The Service Plan must obligate the District to file an annual report not later than September 1 of each year with the City Clerk for the year ending the preceding December 31, the requirements of which may be waived in whole or in part by the City Council or the City Manager. Unless waived by the City the Service Plan must require the annual report to include the following: 1. A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service Plan for the report year; 2. Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operations (i.e., revenues and expenditures) for the report year; 3. Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements in the report year; Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 7 4. Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the amount of outstanding indebtedness, the amount and terms of any new District indebtedness or long-term obligations issued in the report year, the amount of payment or retirement of existing indebtedness of the District in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all taxable properties within the District as of January 1 of the report year and the current mill levy of the District pledged to debt retirement in the report year; and 5. Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably necessary by the City Manager. B. In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District Board at its last known address. The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan, at the discretion of the City. 10.8 Sanctions Should any District undertake any act which constitutes a material modification to the Service Plan, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate: 1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Act; 2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District's development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services; 3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement under which the District is in default; or 4. Exercise any other legal remedy, including seeking injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law. 10.9 Review and Approval Process A. Once the City Manager has established compliance with this Policy, the City Manager will, within a reasonable time, place before the City Council for its consideration a resolution approving the Service Plan. The resolution will be processed and governed by the City Charter and the City Code. B. The proponents of the District must cause a notice of the public hearing at which the proposed resolution is to be considered by the City Council to be mailed by first class mail to the owners of record of all property within the proposed District and within any inclusion area specifically identified in the Service Plan, as such owners of Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 8 record are listed on the records of the County Assessor. The mailed notice must be made at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on the resolution. The notice shall include the following: 1. A description of the general nature of the proposed services and public improvements to be provided by the District; 2. A description of the property to be included in the District and the inclusion area (if any), which description will be by street address, by reference to lots or blocks on any recorded subdivision plat thereof, or by metes and bounds if not subdivided, by tax identification number or by any other method reasonably calculated to apprise owners of the property to be included in the District; 3. The place at which a copy of the Service Plan may be examined; 4. The date, time and place of public hearing on the Service Plan; 5. A statement that all protests and objections must be submitted in writing to the City Manager at or prior to the public hearing, in order to be considered; and 6. A statement that all protests and objections to the District, as proposed, will be deemed to be waived unless presented in writing at the time and in the manner specified in this subsection. C. The resolution will be conclusive of the City's determination on the Service Plan. No action or proceeding, at law or in equity, to review any acts or proceedings or to question the validity of the Council's determination pursuant to this Policy, whether based upon irregularities or jurisdictional defects, will be maintained unless commenced within 30 days after the adoption of the Council's ordinance, or else be thereafter perpetually barred. In the manner and to the extent provided in this Policy, City Council will maintain continuing jurisdiction over the operations and affairs of the District and will exercise its rights in relation thereto, as deemed appropriate by City Council, pursuant to the Act and as consistent with this Policy. 10.10 Fees With the submittal of a Service Plan, the entity proposing the District must also submit to the City Clerk the following amounts: 1. a non-refundable application fee not to exceed $2,000; and 2. a $10,000 deposit to reimburse the City for staff, legal, and consultant A request for an amendment or modification to a Service Plan must be submitted to the City Clerk and be accompanied by the following: 1. a non-refundable application fee not to exceed $250; and 2. a $1,500 deposit to reimburse the City for staff, legal, and consultant time. Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 9 The City may draw against the deposits referred to above based upon then current hourly rates (including benefits) of employees working on the Service Plan and the applicable rates for legal and other consultants. If the reimbursed amount exceeds the deposit, the balance shall be due to the City immediately and prior to consideration of the Service Plan or amendment by the City Council. Any deposit amounts remaining upon Council consideration of the Service Plan or amendment will be returned. The purpose of staff, legal, and consultants' review is to provide the City Council with expert advice in considering the adequacy of the Service Plan and in forming a basis for adopting an ordinance approving, disapproving, or conditionally approving the Service Plan for the District. The fees set forth in this Section may be waived by City Council. Financial Management Policy 11 Pension Funding-DRAFT Issue Date: XXX XX, 201X Version: NEW Issued by: Controller Financial Policy 11 – Pension Funding DRAFT 1 11.1 Funding Methods A. Percent of payroll for active members is 10.5% of gross pay. This contribution outlined in the GERP and was last changed January 1, 2011. Because the plan has been closed to new members since 1999, the active membership continues to decline and this is no longer the primary funding mechanism. B. Supplemental contributions are made by the City and PFA and are currently $1,120,000 per year. This amount was originally put into effect for 2013. 11.2 When to Modify Funding Methods PERCENT FUNDED. A key measure of the financial viability of a defined benefit pension plan is Fiduciary Net Position as a percent of the Total Pension Liability, with 100% being fully funded. Less than 100% means the plan is underfunded. A. Greater than 120% funded When the plan is over funded by more than 120% City Council will consider investment de-risking by annuitizing the plan and reducing the contributions to the plan. Staff will analyze viability and make a recommendation to City Council. Council shall also consider reducing the contributions through either payroll or supplementary method, or both. B. Between 95% and 120% Funded When the plan reaches 95% funded or more the City Council shall consider reducing the Objective: This policy is intended to provide guidance as to when adjustments to contributions to the General Employee Retirement Plan (GERP) should be considered. Applicability: This policy applies to all City funds and PFA. It does not apply to the URA, DDA and Library. Authorized by: City Council Resolution 201X-XXX. Financial Policy 11 – Pension Funding DRAFT 2 supplementary contribution. Staff will analyze alternatives and make recommendation to City Council. C. Between 70% and 95% Funded Continue with the funding methods of 10.5% of payroll and $1.12 million in supplemental contributions, assuming forecasts indicate the supplemental contribution can be discontinued within 25 years. Staff will analyze alternatives and make recommendation to City Council. D. 70% or less Funded City Council shall consider increasing the supplemental contribution to a level that will fully fund the plan in less than 25 years or when the youngest active member is expected to be age 60, whichever is sooner. 11.3 Factors to Consider when Adjusting Contributions A. Maintaining sufficient assets to pay all benefits when due B. Maintaining stable contribution rates C. Incremental increases and decreases are permitted D. De-risking (i.e. annuity instrument purchases) is usually quite expensive E. Budgeting for increased contributions normally occurs during BFO cycle F. Fully funded status is not necessarily permanent; market conditions and changes to actuarial assumptions can affect funding status subsequent to reaching 100% G. Fully fund the plan in under 25 years or when the youngest active member is expected to be age 60, whichever is sooner H. Once contributions are made, monies cannot be refunded from the Plan to the City until after all beneficiary payments cease. 11.4 Monitor Actuarial Assumptions A. Actuarial assumptions need to be monitored annually by GERC and staff for factors such as: 1) Mortality tables 2) Investment returns and discount rates 3) Cash-out rates 4) Investment policy 5) Contribution rates 6) Others as appropriate Financial Policy 11 – Pension Funding DRAFT 3 Getting Help Please contact the Controller with any questions at 970.221.6772. COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Patrick Rowe, Interim Redevelopment Project Coordinator Date: October 26, 2015 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION North College Urban Renewal Authority TIF Application – Hickory Commons EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hickory Commons, a proposed development located within the North College Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA), has submitted an application for TIF financing assistance in the amount of $136,072. If approved, the TIF would be provided as a reimbursement for stormwater facility costs, including a neighborhood drainage outfall which may benefit several properties within the vicinity of the proposed development. The TIF assistance would be paid out over time based on actual increment collected from the project, in keeping with current URA practices. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the URA Finance Committee concur with staff’s recommended reimbursement approach (terms and timeline)? 2. Does the URA Finance Committee have questions, comments, or concerns that should be addressed before this item is presented to the URA Board? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Fort Collins URA received an application for TIF assistance from the developer of Hickory Commons, a proposed development located within the boundaries of the North College TIF district. The proposed development is located on a vacant parcel of land at 319 Hickory Street (location map attached). The development will consist of two (2) 11,000 square foot industrial buildings and one (1) 7-unit live/work condo building. The TIF request is for a maximum of $136,072 for the reimbursement of costs related to the construction of the development’s stormwater system. This system includes the construction and oversizing of proposed drainage outfall, which may be a benefit to neighboring properties. Additionally, the stormwater system will pick-up historic flows from Hickory Street and a neighboring property to the west. The repay eligible portion of this request is estimated to be $40,000, and would be assigned to the URA if the application is approved. Financial Information URA staff has worked with the property owner to understand costs associated with the project and the potential for TIF. The table below provides pertinent financial information that serves as the basis for the proposed assistance. Estimated Annual Property Tax Increment* $72,163 Total Increment Generated Over Remaining Life of N. College Plan $938,117 Requested TIF as percentage of estimated generated TIF 14.5% Estimated Project Cost $4,909,886 Estimated Project Revenue $5,071,860 *The estimate of annual property tax increment was provided by Larimer County Public Benefit URA projects are evaluated according to the public benefits they achieve. This project compliments several community policy goals in addition to achieving statutory obligations for blight remediation. City Plan, Policy GM-8.1: Redevelopment and infill development will be encouraged in targeted locations. The project is an infill project within the North College Urban Renewal Plan area, an area targeted for encouraging redevelopment and infill. City Plan, Policy GM-8.4 Remedy Infrastructure Deficiencies. The City will consider opportunities to selectively correct infrastructure deficiencies in targeted areas, such as storm drainage and streets, so that infill development or redevelopment does not pay an infrastructure “penalty” to remedy past problems in existing developed areas. The project is contending with higher than typical infrastructure costs due to the lack of a stormwater outfall. Additionally, the project will pick-up historic flows from both Hickory Street and a neighboring property to the west. City Plan, Principle EH 3: The City will support local, unique, and creative businesses. The project includes a 7-unit live/work building. This is a unique development product that does not have a lot of precedence in Fort Collins. North College Urban Renewal Plan - this project will address the following blight factors: • Substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements; • Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. Proposed Terms URA staff reviewed project costs submitted by the applicant and concurs with the applicant’s conclusion that the stormwater costs (itemized below) are eligible for TIF according to Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 et seq. The table below lists such costs and is followed by a summary of the proposed reimbursement structure. Eligible Cost Amount % of Total Increment Storm Drainage System (hard costs) $103,388 11% Civil, fees, and misc. $20,313 2% Contingency $12,370 1% TOTAL $136,072 15% In accordance with recent URA financial parameters, the following TIF assistance structure is proposed: • Assistance will be provided as a reimbursement upon project completion for up to $136,072 of eligible costs listed above. The property owner must submit appropriate documentation to verify such costs were incurred. • The reimbursement will be paid over time based on actual tax increment collected from the project. • The URA will pay 50% of the annual increment collected to the property owner each year, until the $136,072 reimbursement obligation is paid in full or expiration of the TIF district, whichever occurs first (proposed reimbursement schedule attached). If the increment collected is lower or higher than the estimate provided by the County, the property owner will only receive 50% of whatever amount is actually collected. • The property owner is required to design all new buildings to be eligible for Designed to Earn the Energy Star (DEES) certification. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Application (key parts) Attachment 3 – Proposed Reimbursement Schedule Attachment 4 – Financial Analysis Tables Hickory St N College Ave Location Map - Hickory Commons Legend Hickory Commons Parcel Attachment 2 Page 1 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 9 of 11 Attachment 2 Page 10 of 11 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: PROJECT NO.: DATE: PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET: OF 07/24/2014 45-103 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO HICKORY COMMONS C16 7 APPROV. 908 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 219-2834 ENGINEERING PEX 8/4/2015 BG MINOR AMENDMENT TO REVISE SITE PLAN, GRADING AND UTILITY SERVICES DRAINAGE EXHIBIT C8A BG BG DD Attachment 2 Page 11 of 11 2018 1 2019 2020 2021 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 @ 50% Est. Increment2 $ 36,081.44 $ 36,081.44 $ 36,081.44 $ 27,827.68 Total to Date $ 36,081.44 $ 72,162.88 $ 108,244.32 $ 136,072.00 Proposed Reimbursement Schedule 1Assumed completion of project construction in 2016, increment generated in 2017 and first collection in 2018. 2Increment based on Larimer County estimate; actual may be more or less. Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1 Hickory Commons ‐ Financial Analysis 8/25/15 Table 1 ‐ Estimated TIF Generated by Proposed Project Existing (2015) Value Assessment Rate Mill Levy Type 97024‐08‐001 29% 0.091219 Comm $ 4,368.48 97024‐05‐021 29% 0.091219 Comm $ 161.46 $ 4,529.94 Proposed (2017) $1,711,400 29% 0.091219 2 units comm $ 45,272.54 $690,941 29% 0.091219 7 units comm $ 18,277.81 $1,810,000 7.96% 0.091219 7 apts res $ 13,142.47 $ 76,692.82 Incremental Tax Diff. $ 72,162.88 TIF Generated 2017 thru 2029 (13 years) 13 years @ $72,162.88 Estimated TIF Generated $ 938,117.44 Notes: 1) Source of property tax information: Larimer County, as provided in application submital. 2) Project assumed to be constructed in 2016 and completed by January 1, 2017. Tax increment allocation available until December 21, 2029 with final collection in 2030. Attachment 4 Page 1 of 3 Hickory Commons ‐ Financial Analysis 8/25/15 Table 2 ‐ Project Revenue and Costs Project Revenue Units Type Size (SF) Unit Value Unit Revenue Building 1 Warehouse 11,022 $115 $1,267,530 Building 2 Warehouse 11,022 $115 $1,267,530 Building 3: ‐Residential Live 10,203 $175 $1,785,525 ‐Storage/Industrial Work 7,155 $105 $751,275 TOTAL VALUE $5,071,860 Cost Land Acquisition $140,000 Design, Entitlement, City Fees $380,000 Drainage $136,072 Hickory, Hemlock, and other site improvements $376,089 Structures‐Finish $3,877,725 TOTAl COSTS $4,909,886 Project Costs Notes: 1) Source of project revenue and costs: Applicant submitted Proforma Summary dated 7/16/2015. Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3 Hickory Commons ‐ Financial Analysis 8/25/15 Table 3 ‐ Requested TIF and ROI with/without TIF Requested TIF Reimbursement ‐ Storm System Cost Storm System $103,388 Associated Soft Costs & Fees $20,313 Contingency $12,370 TOTAL Estimated TIF Reimbursement $136,072 Requested TIF as a percentage of estimated generated TIF 14.5% ROI (WITHOUT TIF assistance) Projected Project Revenue $5,071,860 Anticipated Project Costs ($4,909,886) NET Projected Developer Profit/Loss $161,974 ROI 3.30% ROI (WITH TIF assistance) Projected Project Revenue $5,071,860 Anticipated Project Costs ($4,909,886) TIF Financing of Storm System $136,072 NET Projected Developer Profit/Loss $298,046 ROI 6.07% Notes: 1) Source of requested TIF Reimbursement: Applicant submitted Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs dated 7/15/2015. Attachment 4 Page 3 of 3 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Patrick Rowe, Interim Redevelopment Project Coordinator Date: October 26, 2015 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION 2016 Budget for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item pertains to the 2016 budget for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA). The budget is comprised of revenues and expenses from the three tax increment financing districts within the URA, as well as general URA operating costs. The 2016 annual operating appropriation for 2016 is $2,889,600. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED No discussion planned - this item is provided as information only; staff is available for questions. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Revenue for the URA is generated from property and sales tax increment collections as well as interest earned on investments. Property tax increment is determined by the County Assessor’s Office. The Assessor’s Office prepares a preliminary estimate of property value and tax collections for the next year in August and finalizes this in December. The August estimate has historically been very accurate and is relied on for the purposes of this 2016 URA budget. Property tax increment sources include the North College TIF district and the Prospect South TIF district (no property tax increment is estimated in the Foothills District in 2016). Sales tax increment is calculated by the City Finance Department and only applies to the Foothills District. North College TIF District The total tax increment revenue for the North College Plan Area in 2016 is projected to be $1,451,855. Additional revenue is collected from interest earned on investments, which totals $85,665. Combined, the 2016 total estimated revenue for the North College URA is $1,537,520. This is a positive swing from the approved 2015 budget and reflects an increase of generated tax increment in the North College district. URA expenses are a combination of operating costs and debt service payments. The operations line item includes cost for personnel, on-call consulting services, and the County fee for collection of TIF. Operating expenses for the North College TIF District for 2016 include the following: • Operations $ 286,133 Total $ 286,133 The North College TIF District’s annual debt service payments (principal and interest) are from the following outstanding loans: • North College Bond Payment $945,863 • Rocky Mountain Innosphere $132,598 Total $1,078,461 The Resolution would appropriate the operating and debt service budget for the North College District, which totals $1,364,594 for 2016. Prospect South District The total tax increment revenue for the Prospect South Plan Area in 2016 is projected to be $449,859. Additional revenue is collected from interest earned on investments, which totals $326. Combined, the 2016 total estimated revenue for the Prospect South District is $450,185. URA expenses are a combination of operating costs, project costs, and debt service payments. The operations line item includes cost for personnel and a County fee for collection of property taxes. Operating expenses for the Prospect South TIF District for 2016 include the following: • Operation $ 8,997 • Project Cost – Prospect Station $11,762 Total $ 20,759 The Prospect South District’s annual debt service payments (principal and interest) are from the following outstanding loans: • Capstone $274,325 • Prospect Station $17,459 2015 Budget 2016 Budget Difference Revenues $ 1,214,759 $ 1,537,520 $ 322,761 Operating Expenses $ 273,023 $ 286,133 $ $ 13,110 Debt Service $ 1,079,461 $ 1,078,461 $ (1,000) Total Expenses $ 1,352,484 $ 1,364,594 $ 12,110 North College District Comparison of 2015 Budget with Current 2016 Budget • Revenue Sharing with City (Capstone) $73,318 Total $365,102 The Resolution would appropriate the operating and debt service budget for the Prospect South District, which totals $385,861 for 2016. Foothills District The total tax increment revenue for the Foothills District in 2016 is projected to be $1,139,145. This represents estimated sales tax increment based on updated leasing activity and assumptions. There is no property tax increment estimated for 2016. URA expenses are a combination of operating costs and debt service payments. There are no operating cost line items in 2016. The Foothills District annual debt service payments are from the following outstanding loans: • Metro District Bond $1,139,145 Total $1,139,145 The Resolution would appropriate the operating and debt service budget for the Foothills District, which totals $1,139,145 for 2016. ATTACHMENTS 2015 Budget 2016 Budget Difference Revenues $ 339,713 $ 450,185 $ $ 110,472 Operating Expenses $ 6,789 $ 20,759 $ 13,970 Project Costs $ 726,281 $ - $ (726,281) Debt Service $ 313,059 $ 365,102 $ 52,043 Total Expenses $ 1,046,129 $ 385,861 $ (660,268) Prospect South District Comparison of 2015 Budget with Current 2016 Budget 2015 Budget 2016 Budget Difference Revenues $ 849,900 $ 1,139,145 $ $ 289,245 Operating Expenses $ - $ - $ $ - Debt Service $ 849,900 $ 1,139,145 $ 289,245 Total Expenses $ 849,900 $ 1,139,145 $ 289,245 Comparison of 2015 Budget with Current 2016 Budget Foothills District County Boundary Quarter-Mile Buffer of GMAs City Structure Plan Districts General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Industrial District Employment District Printed: August 19, 2015 0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles Scale CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF 1:84,FORT 000 COLLINS INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS © These and were map not products designed and or all intended underlying for general data are use developed by members for use of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in labeling thereon. or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of the by any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or may not be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. K:\ArcMapProjects\EconomicHealth\GMADevelopment\Maps\GMAVicinity11x17.mxd PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 3 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 4 INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (PREWEATHERED ZINC) PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING ATTACHMENT #3 GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING ATTACHMENT #3 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 3 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM -COLOR 4 INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (PREWEATHERED ZINC) PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING ATTACHMENT #3 )5$0( $57:$// 35(&$673/$17(5 &2/25 &2/25 5$0383%(<21' (6&$$/67 (  & +  (67187675((7 BRICK VENEER ATTACHMENT #3 6.7%DN RAMP 6.7% UP RAMP 18'-11" 18 SPACES 18'-11" 18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0" 18'-11" 16'-5" 8'-9" 19 SPACES 16 SPACES 9 SPACES 9 SPACES 16 SPACES 14 SPACES 3 SPACES 3 SPACES 242'-0" O.T.O. 175'-0" O.TO. 13.6% DN RAMP EXPRESS 13 SPACES 8'-9" 16'-5" 18'-11" 6.7%DN RAMP 18'-11" 16'-5" 19 SPACES 16 SPACES 14 SPACES 9 SPACES 175'-0" O.TO. 13 SPACES 8'-9" 18'-11" 9 SPACES 18'-0" 24'-6" 18'-0" 5 SPACES ISOMETRIC EXPRESS RAMP GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL. 25'-8" EL. 15'-0" EL. 0'-0" ADO COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE OPTION 3C SECOND & THIRD LEVEL X X X CHESTNUT STREET 175'-0" O.TO. OPEN AREA FOR VAN " 40'-0" 1'-0" ISOMETRIC EXPRESS RAMP GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL. 25'-8" EL. 15'-0" EL. 0'-0" GROUND LEVEL CAR COUNT BASE OPTION 9'-0" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B+) 8'-9" 65° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) TIER STANDARD VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE TOTAL GROUND 80 3 3 86 SECOND 117 0 3 120 THIRD 117 0 2 119 TOTAL 314 3 8 325 ATTACHMENT #2 EL. 0'-0" LEGEND NORTH Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 3-1 OPTION 3D GROUND LEVEL UND LEVEL CAR COUNT BASE OPTION 9'-0" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B+) X X X E E T T T T E E E E CHESTNUT STREET JEFFERSON STREET 20' WIDE ALLEY POTENTIAL RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE 242'-0" O.T.O. 175'-0" O.TO. 3200 RETAIL SPACE OPEN AREA FOR POTENTIAL BIKE SHARE 18'-11" 18'-11" 16 SPACES 16 SPACES 6 SPACES 5 SPACES 16'-5" MEP/STORAGE ROOMS 8.3% UP RAMP EXPRESS 13.6% UP RAMP EXPRESS 16'-5" 3'-0" 3'-0" 13 SPACES 5'-6" HOTEL PUBLIC HOTEL 19 SPACES 5 SPACES VAN VAN VAN 1'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 1'-0" ISOMETRIC EXPRESS RAMP GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL. 25'-8" EL. 15'-0" EL. 0'-0" RADO COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE OPTION 3C GROUND LEVEL CAR COUNT BASE OPTION 8'-9" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) 8'-9" 65° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) TIER STANDARD VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE TOTAL GROUND 80 3 3 86 SECOND 117 0 3 120 THIRD 117 0 2 119 TOTAL 314 3 8 325 Ground Floor Plan POTENTIAL RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE RETAIL/OFFICE FLEX SPACE ATTACHMENT #2