HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 11/27/2018 - Memorandum From Delynn Coldiron Re: Leadership Planning Team Minutes - November 26, 2018City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityclerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 26, 2018
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
RE: Leadership Planning Team (LPT) Meeting
Mayor Wade Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak, City Manager Darin Atteberry, Deputy City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, City Attorney Carrie Daggett, Senior Assistant City Manager Kelly DiMartino and City Clerk
Delynn Coldiron met on Monday, November 26, and the following summarizes the discussions that
began at 7:31 a.m.
November 27 Adjourned Meeting and Work Session
The November 27 agendas were reviewed.
• Appeal on off-premise signs – there was brief discussion about what was being appealed;
allowed signage impacted by existing off-premise signs.
• Possible executive session – there was discussion about the purpose of the session and the
potential for moving this to December 11. It will remain on the November 27 agenda for now.
• Roundhouse Renewal Project – it was noted that staff’s analysis on this item was excellent.
There was some discussion about the position of the Land Conservation Stewardship Board. An
updated memo from the board will be provided in read-before packets.
December 4 Regular Meeting
The December 4 agenda was reviewed.
• Fifty-Year Lease at Airport – there was brief discussion about this item; this is to accommodate
Martin Lind’s project. It was noted that this item has been vetted by the Council Finance
Committee. Project provides placemaking and benefit for the Airport.
• International Codes – there was brief discussion about this item; typical updates consistent with
Council’s policy.
Leadership Planning Team Meeting
November 26, 2018
Page 2 of 5
• Alcohol and Marijuana Code Changes – these are clean up items to align with changes made to
state law. References in City Code to Title 12, C.R.S. are being changed to Title 44.
• Jefferson Street Improvements – there was discussion about project design and details, as well
as the authorization for eminent domain if needed at some point in the future. Staff is asked to
provide an update on the outreach that has been or will be done with affected property
owners.
• Art Projects for Streets Park and Poudre River Whitewater Park – there was brief discussion
about each project. There was also a question about whether we have any updates on the
manhole found underneath the river. Staff is asked to provide an update on impacts to
timeline and/or budget.
• Midtown Business Improvement District Budget – it was noted that this item was not reviewed
by the Council Finance Committee. Staff is asked to do this for future budgets.
• Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Fiber Optic Network transfer – there was discussion about
this item and how to publicly recognize and thank PRPA; will do this as part of a Connexion
event. Staff is asked to follow up.
• Impact Fees – there was brief discussion about the process and the committee used; good
work.
• Legislative Policy Agenda – there was brief discussion on this item.
• Council appointment to the Larimer County Behavioral Health Policy Council – there was
discussion on whether this should be the Mayor or his designee. The Mayor suggested
Councilmember Stephens should be appointed and will follow up to see if she is interested.
Six Month Calendar
December 11
• Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) item will be moving. Potential meeting dates discussed included
December 20 (after URA), January 2 (Wednesday) and January 7 (Monday). Staff will be polling
Council for availability on January 2 or 7. Other items for Council consideration at this meeting
include:
o Council Vacancy.
o Council-Pay Petition (if sufficient).
Leadership Planning Team Meeting
November 26, 2018
Page 3 of 5
December 18
• Fort Collins/Loveland Police Training Facility LEED Standards added to the calendar.
• Staff Report: Sprinkler Audit Program added to the calendar (rescheduled from November 20).
January 15
• Meadow Springs Ranch Easement added to the calendar.
• Lease financing for Prospect/I-25 and the Police Training Facility added to the calendar.
• Staff Report: City Vendor Payment Automation added to the calendar.
April 9
• FoCo Creates Arts and Culture Master Plan added to the calendar (rescheduled from March 12).
March 26
• Magnolia Stormwater Project added to the calendar.
City Clerk Coldiron:
• Provided an update on the Council Pay petition. The petitioner needs approximately 500
additional valid signatures to cure the petition; he has until December 7 to do so. If successful,
the item will need to be considered by Council on two readings in a timeline that ensures we can
publish notice on February 1, 2019.
Senior Assistant City Manager:
• Noted that the FCC has proposed new rules that have a negative impact on what we receive for
fees for local cable channels and pre-empts local authority over the non-cable services provided
by cable companies. Comments in opposition to this are due by December 14. An item may be
added to the December 4 agenda for Council to consider.
• Noted that TDS Cable has requested a franchise agreement with the City in response to the
annexations that have occurred; they operate primarily in the county. We have 180 days to
determine whether to grant their request and will be starting the negotiation process. Staff is
asked to develop a list of pros and cons related to this and to find out whether they offer any
broadband services.
Deputy City Manager Mihelich:
• Noted the Outdoor Wood Burning item scheduled for January 22 and mentioned that the Air
Quality Advisory Board rescheduled its January meeting to the 28th, after the date this item is
scheduled to come to Council. Postponement of this item to February 26 was discussed. The
preference was to keep things moving forward and not postpone. There was discussion about
handling violations similar to other code enforcement issues. Start with education/outreach,
attempt to gain voluntary compliance and then proceed with more strict penalties if problems
Leadership Planning Team Meeting
November 26, 2018
Page 4 of 5
continue. Using an air quality monitor was mentioned as a way to measure, similar to what is
done for noise complaints. Education/outreach to suppliers of fire pits was suggested; perhaps
they would be willing to share City requirements related to smoke and nuisances. Home Depot,
Lowes and Ace Hardware were mentioned.
• Noted that Utilities staff did an analysis for concerned citizens who addressed Council regarding
increases in their utility bills. In each case analyzed, the change was due to increased
consumption, not the new rate structure. Staff is attempting to follow up with the citizens. Staff
is asked to track all complaints and the related analysis/outcome. Staff is also asked to track
those with the same levels of consumption and whose bills have lowered.
City Manager Atteberry:
• Noted that City Councilmembers would likely not be attending the Downtown Development
Authority (DDA)/Downtown Business Association (DBA) holiday party due to the regional
meeting that is scheduled for the same time. Staff is asked to reach out to the DDA/DBA to let
them know.
• Provided an update on the I-25/Harmony project:
o Neighborhood meeting was held in May 2018.
o Staff met with the Planning & Zoning Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board in
July and August to discuss a potential amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan.
o Based on community input, staff decided to separate the plan amendment process from
the proposed development project.
o Staff is currently drafting a “staff-initiated” amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan.
Specifically addresses the design and development intent for the gateway area.
Provides additional stakeholder outreach in the process, including a focused
workshop scheduled for December 12.
Draft and final amendment to be reviewed by Planning & Zoning Board and
Natural Resources Advisory Board, and potentially other boards.
Targeting March/April to bring the plan amendment to Council.
o Applicant intends to pursue a PUD Master Plan after Council consideration of staff’s plan
amendment. A pre-application meeting might also be requested with Council.
• Noted that staff is working on a variation of a staff directory and will be adding the department
head name, email and phone number to web pages.
• Noted that staff will be providing a response to Council regarding Councilmember Overbeck’s
request to initiate a program similar to Leave No Trace.
Leadership Planning Team Meeting
November 26, 2018
Page 5 of 5
Mayor Pro Tem Horak:
• Noted that the handicap space farthest to the west in the City Hall parking lot used to have a
buffer on both sides. Staff is asked to provide information on why this is no longer the case. As
well, staff is asked to review if the doors on the north side of City Hall should have the necessary
push buttons/automation to enable handicapped individuals to easily get inside.
• Noted the additional outreach mentioned at the City Plan Scenarios work session and wanted to
ensure that low income and other under-represented populations were included in these efforts.
• Asked about how the Utilities would be recognized for the award they recently received. Staff is
asked to follow up. Kudos to all involved.
• Noted the response to citizen Bryan and requested that he receive additional information on the
income tax question related to KFCG.
• Noted an article he found on mini bonds. The article is attached.
Mayor Troxell:
• Noted an email he received that shared concerns about the proposed Downtown code changes.
Meeting adjourned at 9:44 am.
The mini-bond issue
Mini-bonds democratize municipal bonds and are growing in usage, but do these divergent securities
yield more benefits than traditional municipal bonds?
• Written byJason Axelrod
• 07 Nov 2018
Issuing municipal bonds is an effective public funding mechanism, but it isn’t the most public-facing
mechanism. Being typically sold in $5,000 increments — according to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board — can make an individual’s purchase of municipal bonds prohibitive to those who desire to invest in
their communities.
Growing in prevalence however, is a different type of government security that lets city officials make
municipal bonds more accessible to their constituents. Mini-bonds, or small denomination municipal bonds,
democratize municipal bonds by selling directly to investors in much lower increments like $500 or $1,000.
Mini-bonds aren’t new — certain local governments have issued small denomination bonds sporadically
across the country since New Orleans did so in the late 1800s, according to a 2016 Municipal Finance Journal
article, “Costs of Raising (Social) Capital Through Mini-Bonds,” by University of Colorado Denver Associate
Professors Todd Ely and Christine Martell. However, they reemerged in the early 1990s.
While similar in name to municipal bonds, the characteristics of a mini-bond, its issuance process, its
advantages, its challenges and its ultimate tangible and intangible yields diverge from traditional municipal
bonds.
The bond between government and constituents
Financially-speaking, mini-bonds stand distinct from municipal bonds, Ely and Martell write. Municipal bonds
are current interest bonds that are limited by investor demand, have no maximum purchase amount and
typically mature up to 40 years. Mini-bonds however, are typically zero-coupon bonds that are limited by
individual investor demand, have purchase caps for individual or household investors and mature for shorter
periods.
The sale of debt as a vehicle for funding is the chief purpose of municipal bonds. While functioning as a
financial instrument, mini-bonds also give people access to the municipal bond market and make them
cognizant of the connection between their investment and local projects, Martell explains in an interview.
People who wouldn’t buy $5,000 municipal bond increments can invest in a portfolio of municipal bonds
through mutual funds. But the concept of a mini-bond allows people to invest directly into a project they can
see at home, says Michael Belsky, executive director of the Harris School of Public Policy’s Center for
Municipal Finance at the University of Chicago.
The result, is that mini-bonds can serve citizen engagement purposes as well as financial ones.
“We used to have war bonds, where people would buy bonds to support the war effort during World War II,”
Belsky says. “It’s a similar idea, right? You’re rallying your community around something that benefits them.”
Finance officials in cities that have issued mini-bonds say that mini-bonds function best when they are
allocated to fund physical infrastructure like buildings. Cambridge, Mass. issued mini-bonds in February 2017
and February 2018, and Cambridge Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs David Kale says that feedback
from Cambridge residents showed that they wanted to purchase mini-bonds that would fund city projects that
they could see and feel.
“You want people to invest into something tangible that will make them proud,” says Natasha Ramras, finance
director for Vancouver, Wash., which sold mini-bonds between May 26, 2015 and June 5, 2015 to help fund
the renovation of buildings within the Vancouver National Historic Reserve.
The sale of mini-bonds is often limited to state or local residents. Both of Cambridge’s mini-bond issuances
were limited to city residents, according to the city’s website. Comparatively, Madison, Wis., sold mini-bonds
labeled as “community bonds” in October 2018 on a first-come, first-serve basis with preference given to
residents of Madison, then Dane County (Wis.), then Wisconsin and lastly to the U.S. as a whole, according to
Madison Finance Director David Schmiedicke.
The actual order of mini-bonds differs from municipal bonds as well. “With our typical debt sales, we’ll just
have a competitive sale. It’ll be a certain time on a certain date and that’s it. Whoever has the lowest bid gets
the deal,” Schmiedicke says. “In this case, with the community bonds, it’ll be roughly a one-week-long order
period to give folks time to purchase it, and hopefully we’ll have them all sold during that order period.”
Given municipal bonds’ obscurity to the average city resident, issuing mini-bonds requires thorough
marketing as well — an endeavor that wouldn’t make sense for the bonds’ larger siblings. Comparing a mini-
bond issuance to a municipal bond issuance, Schmiedicke notes that the former “involves a little more work in
the sense that we have to put together a marketing plan and marketing materials.”
The execution of a marketing campaign is one of several key differences between the way mini-bonds are
issued, versus how municipal bonds are issued.
Securing a security
An advertisement that Cambridge, Mass., released to promote its mini-bond issuance to residents.
Essentially, there are two major ways to go about issuing mini-bonds. The first — which Vancouver did in
2015 — is for the city to assume administrative responsibilities itself.
While the city involved multiple intermediaries in its issuance process like an underwriter, a bond counsel
and a fiscal agent, Vancouver opted to receive orders internally, according to Vancouver Treasurer Carrie
Lewellen. Taking orders in-person and by mail that could range from $500 to $10,000 per household proved
to be a challenge — the city ultimately received around 280 orders totaling nearly $1.3 million during a two-
week order period. Vancouver publicized the mini-bonds through press releases and social media posts.
Vancouver had originally targeted a mini-bond issuance of $1.5 million, and Lewellen says that the city would
have sold out of mini-bonds if the order period had been extended. However, given the more intensive
administrative process for mini-bonds, uncertainty of how the city would receive the mini-bond issuance and
a need for monetary certainty, the city decided to not extend the offering period, Ramras says.
Cambridge and Madison however, pursued the issuance of mini-bonds through a second method — by
working with a company called Neighborly.
Originally founded in 2012, Neighborly established itself as a broker and dealer of mini-bonds in 2016,
working as the lead banker for mini-bond deals, according to Neighborly Director of Business Development
Pitichoke Chulapamornsri.
Neighborly digitizes mini-bond issuance — cities issue their mini-bonds through Neighborly’s online
platform, where Neighborly sets bond denominations and where the order taking process takes place,
Chulapamornsri says. While Neighborly does mini-bond underwriting, cities need to go through standard
bond procedures like enlisting a bond counsel and working with a municipal advisor. The company works
with each community to negotiate an underwriting fee that is dependent on the specific project.
“Our mission is to make it possible for anyone to invest in bonds,” Chulapamornsri says.
Neighborly also supports cities in implementing a marketing campaign to target residents, he adds.
Cambridge was the first city that Neighborly worked with to issue mini-bonds, and Kale says that key
elements from that issuance in 2017 concerned educating residents on mini-bonds and on Neighborly, as well
as conducting the outreach necessary for residents to become aware of the city’s mini-bond issuance.
Leading up to its first mini-bond issuance, Cambridge created a “robust” webpage full of information on the
city’s mini-bonds, held community meetings to answer questions and conducted an extensive campaign of
advertisements through postcards and kiosks, according to Kale.
“In year one, I think it was clearly a novelty of buying Cambridge bonds directly,” he says. “I think clearly; we
were hoping that people in year two would have the same kind of affinity for the purchase of mini-bonds. And
I think that not only did we see that occur in year two, we also saw that we had a whole bunch of new
investors coming to the last year’s sale.”
In 2017, Cambridge sold out of its $2 million mini-bond issuance through 244 orders, and The Bond Buyer
named it the Non-Traditional Deal of the Year, according to Kale and the city’s website. The city plans to use
that money to renovate school buildings, upgrade municipal facilities’ energy efficiency, update city parks and
to implement its Complete Streets plan, a Neighborly case study on the issuance shows.
Earlier this year, Cambridge sold about $1.9 million out of a $2.5 million mini-bond issuance through 217
orders, Kale says. He notes that the city increased the maximum order cap from $20,000 in 2017 to $25,000 in
2018. Additionally, 20 percent of 2018 mini-bond investors had invested in the 2017 mini-bonds.
A look at the balance sheet
Mini-bonds can clearly sell given enough outreach. Examined more quantitatively however, disadvantages
appear for the security compared to traditional municipal bonds. For example, it’s unrealistic to assume that a
mini-bond would sell nearly as much as a municipal bond would, Belsky says.
“You’re not going to be able to completely sell out to individuals that live in your community a $10- to $20- or
even a $100 million issue,” Belsky says. “You might be able to sell out to people in the community something
that ranges from $1 million to $2 million. On the larger issues, you’re just going to see a small portion of it
sold.”
This hearkens back to Vancouver, which carved $1.5 million out of a $4.7 million total municipal bond to be
sold as mini-bonds, according to data provided by Lewellen. The rest was sold as limited tax general
obligation bonds.
Ely and Martell’s article scrutinizes five Denver mini-bond issuances over a 25-year span and compares them
to Denver municipal bond issuances throughout that period. They found that the mini-bond issuances
consistently encountered higher interest rates than traditional municipal bonds did under the same voter
authorization. Moreover, they write, Denver would have found “substantial savings” in issuance costs had the
city raised mini-bond capital in a traditional manner. The principal amounts of municipal bonds of course,
often dwarfed those of mini-bonds, too.
Ultimately, Ely and Martell write, the decision to issue a mini-bond, “is a political decision to accept higher
costs of borrowing for perceived benefits that are much harder to value.”
Further on in the article, both professors write that, “a primary lesson learned is that elected officials should
be provided an estimate of the additional costs of mini-bond financing to accurately weigh their costs and
benefits.”
However, there are other cities that seem to have chosen to pursue those perceived benefits. In 2017,
Neighborly also worked with Burlington, Vt. and Lawrence, Kan. to issue mini-bonds, and the company
worked with Madison and Somerville, Mass. this year to issue mini-bonds, Chulapamornsri says. Additionally,
Cambridge is set to conduct another mini-bond issuance in 2019, tentatively set at $2.5 million, according to
Kale.
“It’s a different way of thinking, it’s a different way of marketing, but I think it’s worked out good,” Kale says.