HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 2/12/2019 - Urban Renewal Authority Finance Committee Meeting Agenda - February 11, 2019Urban Renewal Authority
222 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.4349
970.224.6107 – fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
URA Finance Committee
February 11, 2019
2:00 pm -3:00 pm
1. Approval of 1/10/19 URA Finance Committee Minutes
2. North College IGA: Stormwater Improvements
3. Plan Update: URP Public Benefits and Project Costs
4. Update: IGA Negotiations
Other Business:
URA 12-MONTH PLANNING CALENDAR
February 2019 – August 2019
CALENDAR SUBJECT TO FREQUENT CHANGES
Email URA Staff for up-to-date information: URABoardInfo@fcgov.com
“The mission of the Urban Renewal Authority is to remedy blight, using Tax Increment Financing, to leverage private
capital investment, and stimulate sustainable development and public improvement projects.”
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Wade Troxell, Chair Susan Gutowsky
Gerry Horak, Vice Chair Andy Smith
Ross Cunniff Kristin Stephens
Christophe Febvre Ken Summers
Steve Johnson Joe Wise
Ray Martinez
(Items are listed in no particular order)
URA Board Meeting
Selection Committee
Planning & Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee
URA Finance Committee
City Council Meeting
Public Open House
Created: 2/6/2019 4:04 PM
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House
Meeting Info Agenda Item The purpose of this item is to…
February 11
Time:2:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Finance Committee: Minutes (consent)
North College IGA North College IGA with City for stormwater improvements
Plan Update: Public Improvements Review larger public benefits of project and cost perimeters
Update: IGA Negotiations Update IGA Negotiations
February 27
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting:
Minutes (consent)
Executive Session The Board will Consider a Possible Motion to go into Executive Session
North College IGA Adopt IGA with City of Fort Collins for stormwater improvements in North College
Urban Renewal Plan Area.
Plan Update: Public Improvements Review larger public benefits of project and cost perimeters
IGA Negotiations Update Update IGA Negotiations
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House
Meeting Info Agenda Item The purpose of this item is to…
Sales Tax co-op agreement Co-op agreement of sales tax in urban renewal plan area
March TBD
Time:TBD
Location: CIC
URA Finance Committee:
Review TIF Allocations Review Tax Increment Finance (TIF) allocations within proposed Urban Renewal
Plan Area
March 5
Time: 6:00pm
Location: City
Council
Chambers
City Council: Set public Hearing
for Adoption of an Urban Renewal
Plan Area in the Vicinity of Drake
and College (Consent)
Set the date of the Public Hearing and provide notice to consider adoption of a
proposed Urban Renewal Plan Area
Economic Health-3.4 Foster infill and redevelopment that enhances the community
March 28
Time: 2:00pm
Location: City
Council
Chambers
URA Board Meeting:
TIF Allocation IGAs and Urban
Renewal Plan Recommendation
Approve Tax Increment Finance (TIF) allocation agreements and recommend Urban
Renewal Plan (URP)
April 16
Time: 6:00pm
Location: City
Council
Chambers
City Council: Adopt an urban
renewal plan area
Consider the adoption of a new urban renewal plan area at College Avenue and Drake
Road.
Economic Health – 3.4 Foster infill and redevelopment that enhances the community
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House
Meeting Info Agenda Item The purpose of this item is to…
April 24
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting:
Adopt Urban Renewal Plan Area Approve College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area
Redevelopment Agreement Approve redevelopment agreement with Brinkman
May 22
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting Agenda: TBD
June 27
Time: 8am
Location:
TBD
URA Board Meeting URA Board Half Day Retreat: Strategic Planning Session
Strategic Planning Session Set URA Board Goals & Visions for 2019-2020
July 25
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting Agenda: TBD
August 22
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting Agenda: TBD
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House
UNSCHEDULED OR UPCOMING ITEMS
Item Purpose of Item
URA Budget Review/Approval
Prospect & College Project (S. Prospect)
King Soopers Project
501 Spaulding
Revise the budget process and provide new management reporting
Discuss possible TIF participation in a private development project Discuss possible
TIF participation in a private development project
Discuss possible TIF participation in a private development project
URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2019-2020
RVSD 01/30/2019 mnb
Location: CIC Room
(Agenda Items listed in no particular order)
Jan 10th Meeting Time: 10:00am
Review Fiscal Impact Model 40 min J. Birks
Watermark: Proposal on N. College 20 min J. Birks
Feb 11th Meeting Time: 2:00pm
North College IGA: Stormwater Improvements 10 min J. Birks
Plan Update: Public benefits & Project Costs 40 min J. Birks
Update: IGA Negotiations 10 min J. Birks
March
TBD
TBD
Review TIF Allocations 60 min J. Birks
April
TBD
TBD
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Projected sales tax revenue Spradley-Barr-Mazda
• 2020 URA Budget format
• N. College CAG meeting with URA Finance Board
Urban Renewal Authority
222 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.416.4349
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
1/10/19
10am -11am
CIC Room – City Hall
URA Committee Attendees: Darin Atteberry, Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross
Cunniff, Ken Summers, Joe Wise, Christophe
Febvre
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Josh
Birks, Jennifer Baker, Mike Beckstead, Victoria
Shaw
Others: Chris Alexander, Mike Margason
Meeting called to order at 10:06 by Mayor Wade Troxell
URA Finance Committee Meeting Minutes. Josh Birks; Will look to see if there are any previous
meeting minutes that have yet to be officially approved. Next URA Finance Committee Meeting
Feb. 11, 2019.
A. REVIEW FISNCAL IMPACT MODEL
Josh Birks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present the results of a Fiscal Impact Model (“FIM”) prepared by
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) evaluating the impacts of the proposed College and
Drake Urban Renewal Plan. The purpose of the FIM is to evaluate the direct cost impacts to each
of the taxing entities impacted by the proposed plan area. The FIM was developed jointly
through a process led by Larimer County starting in 2014.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the output from the FIM?
2. Does the Committee feel the Board will need additional information about the direct cost
impacts before it can review proposed Tax Increment Revenue allocation agreements?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In May 2015, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 2015-1348 make substantial
changes to the statutes enabling Urban Renewal Authorities (the “Urban Renewal Law”) and
later amended by Senate Bill 2016-177 and Senate Bill 2017-279. These changes require that the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) must negotiate an agreement with all
affected taxing entities (e.g., Larimer County, Poudre River Library District, etc.) determining
how property tax increment generated under any new Urban Renewal Plan (“URP”) will be
allocated between the Authority and the taxing entity - “Representatives of the authority and the
governing body of each taxing entity shall then meet and attempt to negotiate an agreement
governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue…” C.R.S. 31-25-107 (9.5)
LARIMER COUNTY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING STUDY GROUP:
In 2014, the Larimer County Tax Increment Financing Study Group (the “TIF Study Group”)
was formed of representatives from Larimer County, municipalities in the county currently using
urban renewal (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Timnath), five other municipalities, and selected
taxing districts and special districts. The TIF Study group:
• Acknowledged the positive impact of TIF in providing needed financial support for
redevelopment and economic development investments in the County; and
• Convened because of concerns about requirements to provide services to the new
development created by urban renewal supported by TIF.
The TIF Study Group had three primary objectives:
1. Develop a method to qualify and quantify the fiscal and economic impacts and financial
risks of TIF proposals;
2. Develop a way to evaluate the indirect impacts of TIF projects and corresponding
financial effects on taxing entities; and
3. Establish a framework for formal agreements that balance the benefits and risks among
participating entities in Larimer County.
The TIF Study Group completed a significant portion of its work prior to the changes made to
the Urban Renewal Law in 2015, 2016 and 2017 - the final report issued by the group is dated
June 20, 2016. As a result, the Fiscal Impact Model (“FIM”) developed by the group can play a
significant role in evaluating the “estimated impacts” of a proposed urban renewal plan. The TIF
Study Group recommendations included the appointment of County, municipal, and special
district representatives to draft and implement an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) “on the
use of TIF, a process for evaluating new TIF projects, and specific procedures to carry out the
process.”
FISCAL IMPACT MODEL:
The FIM provides an objective estimate of the revenue and annual service costs to the County
and other taxing entities before (without) and after (with) TIF. It also estimates the percentage of
property tax that would need to be retained (exclude from the TIF) in order to maintain a fiscally
neutral position for the impacted taxing entities. The FIM therefore provides an objective
evaluation of the statutory requirement to estimate “impacts of the urban renewal plan on county
or district services associated solely with the urban renewal plan.” C.R.S. 31-25-107 (9.5)
(emphasis added).
The FIM estimates the impact of an URP by comparing the estimated revenues generated by new
development in the URP to the estimated cost of public services required by the same
development. Revenues and costs are estimated based on the most recent actual budget data
available for each taxing entity and an assessment of potential effects of different types of
development on each department or budget category for that entity. This is accomplished by
applying several different methods for estimating the impact on revenues and costs from
development, including:
• Case Study Approach – Based on subject specific data, for example, property tax is
based on the estimated assessed value of proposed development multiplied by the
applicable tax rate; and
• Per Capita Approach – Revenues or costs are aggregated and then divided by the
relevant unit – population, persons served, total commercial units, equivalent residential
unit, or County maintained road miles.
Finally, applying the average factors derived from the above analysis to new growth can
overstate cost impacts, especially for small projects. Adjustments are necessary because many
governmental functions have fixed costs, which do not change as growth occurs. Such fixed
costs can include rent, building and facility costs, some administrative costs. Therefore, the FIM
contains several assumptions and factors regarding the ratio of fixed to variable cost by budget
category or governmental function. These factors combined with the averages derived through
the Case Study and Per Capita approach result in the revenue and costs used by the FIM to
estimate the impacts to a taxing entity and the resulting percentage of property tax to allocate to
achieve fiscal neutrality from a proposed URP.
Authority staff feel confident in the process to update and maintain the FIM and the overall
assumptions of the FIM. Therefore, staff feel confident that the resulting estimates of the FIM
should form the basis for negotiations with taxing entities regarding the allocation of incremental
property tax revenues between the Authority and those taxing entities. Finally, it seems clear that
the result of the FIM meet the statutory requirements to estimate impacts solely associated with a
proposed URP.
COLLEGE AND DRAKE FIM RESULTS:
On December 13, 2018, EPS presented the results of the FIM for the proposed College and
Drake URP, see Attachment 2. The results provide an estimate of the direct cost of the proposed
development on Larimer County, the Northern Larimer County Health District, Poudre River
Library District, and Foothills Gateway (revenue collected by the County and remitted to the
entity). The analysis follows the general process below:
1. Determine the current base value of the property including land and improvements
2. Estimate the new property tax value based on current market conditions
3. Estimate new property tax revenues and revenues from other sources generated by the
proposed development
4. Subtract from Item #3 existing property tax revenues and forecasted cost to serve the
proposed development
5. Resulting in an estimate of the net property tax increment revenue over and above any
projected cost to serve
The resulting output meets the statutory requirements to estimate impacts solely associated with
a proposed URP.
The results of the FIM analysis are summarized in Table 1 below. Overall, the estimated net new
increment to the Authority (excluding the Poudre School District and Northern Water
Conservation District) is approximately 60 percent of the total increment or approximately
$175,000 annually. An estimate of PSD revenue is provided later in this document based on the
current PSD proposal.
Table 1
FIM Output by Taxing Entity (excluding PSD and Northern Water)
Taxing Entity Total Revenue
Less: Existing
Property Tax
Revenue
Net Incremental
Revenue
Less: Cost to
Serve
Net New
Increment
Percent of
Increment
Larimer County $ 284,917 $ 55,318 $ 229,599 $ 90,790 $ 138,810 60%
Health District $ 27,010 $ 5,689 $ 21,321 $ 7,328 $ 13,993 66%
Library District $ 36,292 $ 7,876 $ 28,417 $ 9,715 $ 18,701 66%
Foothillls Gateway $ 9,382 $ 1,969 $ 7,414 $ 3,475 $ 3,938 53%
Subtotal $ 357,601 $ 70,852 $ 286,751 $ 111,308 $ 175,442 61%
Poudre School District (“PSD”) did not participate in the TIF Study Group and therefore was not
included in the FIM. EPS provided a separate estimate of existing property tax revenues and
estimated incremental property tax revenues, see Attachment 3. However, PSD has provided an
initial proposed allocation of tax increment, described below:
1. Set aside and exclude any Mill Levy Override and Bond Mill
2. Split the remaining amount 1/3 to PSD and 2/3 to the Authority
3. Make any allocation subject to the State backfill payments
PSD currently levies 52.630 mills with 27.000 mills of General Fund State Levy or just over
half. The remaining 25.630 mills include Mill Levy Overrides dating back to 1988 and Bond
Redemption mills. Table 2 below provides a break out of the existing and estimated new revenue
by mill source.
Table 2
PSD Property Tax Revenue by Mill Source
Base New Increment
State Levy 27.000 $ 46,925 $ 293,635 $ 246,710
Mill Levy Override &
Senate Bill 184
Allowance
11.683 $ 20,305 $ 127,057 $ 106,752
Bond Redemption 13.947 $ 24,239 $ 151,679 $ 127,439
Total 52.630 $ 91,469 $ 572,371 $ 480,901
Property Tax Revenue
Mill Levy Mills
PSD proposes sharing only 2/3 of the $247,000 in increment associated with the State Levy of
27.000 mills. Therefore, PSD has offered to share approximately $164,000 annually or
approximately 34 percent of total incremental property tax revenue. Authority staff continue to
evaluate the PSD proposal. Given the Board’s direction to staff for the FIM to form the basis of
an allocation and PSD’s exclusion from the existing FIM. Staff is seeking a similar analytical
approach to determining the correct allocation of property tax increment.
Based on discussions at the December 20, 2018 Authority Board meeting, staff intends to start
negotiations based on the results of the FIM. Additional considerations will be included in the
negotiations based on each party’s perspective of other circumstances impacting the entities.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Josh Birks, FIM Results- PRC has not officially approved Qualitative Analysis. Today we will
be evaluating Net Impact to each of the taxing Entities. Model does not include PSD, URA is in
ongoing conversations with PSD.
Ross Cunniff, FIM doesn’t include any ‘But For’ Analysis.
Josh Birks, Correct
Joe Wise, Why does the table exclude PSD and NCWCD?
Josh Birks, NCWCD chose not to participate in PRC. NCWCD has made it very clear they
expect 100%. Staff would like to do further analysis, evaluation and justification.
Ross Cunniff: PSD is backfilled by State general fund. Would be interested in running numbers
to better understand what the impact would be.
Josh Birks, Agreed. Staff would like to analyze per pupil spending analysis and State Funding.
Could easily be very complicated running model similar to other entities. PSD is open to analytic
basis on what amounts would need to be.
Christophe Febvre: PSD has no return on investment with this project. PSD is concerned State
will withdraw backfill after they invest in project.
Wade Troxell: Can you Further explain return on investment.
Christophe Febvre: If dollars are given to URA, PSD operates on a fixed budget from State level.
Ross Cunniff: There is no increase in revenue outside of mill levy overrides.
Josh Birks: PSD budget is based on pupil numbers
Wade Troxell: What is the present value vs. the future value?
Josh Birks: We haven’t evaluated this for PSD or any of the taxing entities. FIM looks at
projected picture once the project is fully built. There is a project build-out lag between
construction and students, depends on who moves in and when, but generally lag is 1-2 year.
EPS & Brinkman are looking at demographics and similar projects to get better direct cost
estimate of expected students.
Christophe Febvre: PSD concerned with backfill because of amendments, back tracts dollars
allocated to PSD. If legislature changes, PSD will lose State money. Mill levy override and
Bonds are not subject to backfill.
Josh Birks: PSD proposal. Ask mill levy over ride SB 181, and Bond redemption to be left out of
URA. Split remaining money 2/3 (164K), 1/3 PSD. PSD, any allocation is subject to state
backfill.
Christophe Febvre, creates issues with monetary stream, could impact ability to bond.
Josh Birks, does not anticipate issuing bonds but could change if parking structure is to come
forward. URA Board needs to think about precedent it is setting.
Christophe Febvre: Increment will go to the State. State then runs formula and sends money to
PSD.
Ross Cunniff: Would like to see the over rides and what the overall impact is on the Mill Levy
and Bond redemption side. This could raise taxes, if we leave these out then there would be no
impact.
Joe Wise: Is there a way Bond redemption and Mill Levy over ride not be part of TIF?
Christophe Febvre: Leaving Bond redemption and Mill Levy over rides outs increases the risk of
law suits.
Josh Birks: Noted to Board, Mills change and are based on collecting specific revenue each year,
not the other way around as seen in other special districts. PSD, mills are capped by voter
approval.
Christophe Febvre: We can only collect what we promised the voters, there are legal
ramifications.
Josh Birks, there is a memo addressing this to be sent to Council.
Wade Troxell: Qualitative Analysis, reflects the opportunity costs. URA has looked at this as
opportunity to create and enhance community, this cannot be a silo conversation. Consider the
evaluation of Degradation vs. Enhancement. Need to think about this in terms of what is at stake
for all parties involved.
Ross Cunniff: Is there an indirect impact study? What are the impacts on the surrounding
properties and how they will translate into higher costs of commercial properties, rent, etc…
Josh Birks: There has been a lot interest in this from community. Can do a literature review and
generalized information.
Christophe Febvre: Will the City have sales tax as part of the FIM?
Josh Birks: Yes. FIM accounts for sales tax transfer in community. Property tax increment is less
than sales. Have evaluated Equitable Deal Structure, following this approach, the URA should be
last dollars in, need to look at other financial tools first.
Wade Troxell: Need to look at collective community benefit. What are the mechanisms to bring
entities together as community vs everyone for themselves? How do we ensure this after
25years? Can we set it so that the TIF is only released to those that participated in the URP area?
What are things that drive the community benefit in the discussion? Need to have quantitative
community benefits.
Josh Birks: Would like to have deeper discussion with URA Board about Qualitative Analysis
and if criteria needs to be re-evaluated.
Joe Wise: We need to know the ‘But For’ and Financial Gap, not sure how to make this decision
without this information. Do not want to see misuse of this tool but can easily occur without the
needed information. Suspects that King Soopers will develop on its own and catalyze Spradley-
Barr development; Not sure if we really need TIF dollars here. Have not seen a Qualitative
Analysis, ‘But For’, or Financial Gap analysis to justify otherwise. Needs more information to
support URP.
Josh Birks: Fully agree. Working with consults to have more financial information before next
board meeting. Developers have been asked to provide more information for the ‘But For’.
Ross Cunniff: Has concern with this project, odds that something doesn’t get re-developed is
low. What substantive development will develop without URA funds?
Wade Troxell: URA provides greater public benefit. Develop can/will occur on its own but TIF
will provide for greater public benefit such as MAX BRT. Fort Collins is distinguished by public
investment infrastructure and integration into community. URA has to have a systems
perspective, collective vision of what role is.
Ross Cunniff: Focusing on benefits to wider community. Exceptional above requirements are
what TIF monies go to. Would like to see an analysis of what the TIF will do for URP, what
public benefit is there.
Joe Wise: What is the purpose of the URA in development?
Wade Troxell: FC has been very diligent in ‘But For’ We can have more rigor on where/why
funds go to projects. We should be that intentional.
Joe Wise: Would like a more in depth analysis, quantification of limits on why we are utilizing
TIF.
Josh Birks: We are working on more in-depth analysis, staff is bringing this together and will
bring to URA Board. Staff is looking at project opportunity costs and greater community benefits
of Urban Renewal Project that staff can present at next URA Finance Committee Meeting.
Wade Troxell: Need more buy-in. Too speculative right now to nail anything down. We need to
agree on the design of the URA itself before we can truly evaluate a proposed plan area.
B. WATERMARK: PROPOSAL ON N. COLLEGE
Josh Birks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present a project concept for the property located in the North
College Urban Renewal Area (“North College URA”) to the Urban Renewal Finance Committee
(the “Committee”). Watermark Residential (the “Developer”) is evaluating the approximately
18.3 acres at 501 Spaulding for residential development to include approximately 300
apartments. The site presents several barriers and uncertainties to development. The Developer
would like to present their concept and associated challenges to the Committee for input.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the proposed project deliver on URA goals and objectives for the area?
2. What additional information does the Committee need to fully appraise TIF support for
the proposed redevelopment at this location?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Developer identified property in Fort Collins at 501 Spaulding in the North College Urban
Renewal Area (“North College URA”) as a potential development site, see Attachment 2. The
property is generally located north of Willox Lane east of the King Soopers Marketplace project.
Access to the property will primarily be off an extension of Redwood Street, which must cross
an irrigation ditch. The Developer is evaluating the site for constructability of up to 300
apartments along with a clubhouse and up to 50 attached garage units.
POTENTIAL IMPEDIMENTS:
In evaluating the feasibility of the project, the Developer has encountered several potential
barriers and uncertainties, see Attachment 3. Each barrier/uncertainty is briefly described
below:
• Bridge Crossing/Redwood Street – Extension of Redwood Street to enable access
requires a bridge crossing of an irrigation ditch. The bridge itself will have impacts to
adjacent properties and Red Wing Marsh that will need to be mitigated during and after
construction (Item 1a - d on the Attachment).
• Ditch Crossing – Extending Redwood Street will require a crossing of the Larimer Weld
Irrigation Company ditch running along the southern edge of the property. Approval for
this crossing will likely require improvements to the ditch and access throughout the site
(Item 3a-c).
• Utility Connections – Obtaining utility service to the site will require several system
extensions, including:
o Sanitary Sewer Connection – The site is within Cherry Hills Sanitation District
service area and will require the extension of the sanitary sewer as well as several
easements and agreements (Item 2a-d).
o Potable Water Redundancy – East Larimer County Water District serves the
site and is requiring a redundant water line in addition to the required water to
serve the project (Item 5a & b).
o Transformer Relocation – As a result of the planned alignment of Redwood
Street two large transformers and an electrical pole will need to be relocated prior
to construction (Item 7a).
• Stormwater Management – The site design and stormwater management approach will
require cooperation from the Larimer Weld Irrigation Company, owner of the irrigation
canal running along the south edge of the property (Item 4).
• Easement Impacts– The site currently has both a water line easement (Item 1e) and an
electric line easement (Item 7b) crossing through the site. If one or both cannot be
relocated through development, then they will impact the overall density and
constructability of the site.
• FEMA/Natural Resource Area – The site is impacted by a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (“FEMA”) floodplain. A Letter of Map Revisions process
(“LOMR”) may be needed as a part of the project. In addition, the presence of the
irrigation ditch may present an opportunity to provide new natural areas and habitat
through the deployment of a preservation easement (Item 8a & b).
• Access – Accessing the site, both during construction and by residents, will require the
cooperation of several adjacent property owners (Item 9a-d).
POTENTIAL URA PARTICIPATION:
The Developer believes that collectively the barriers and uncertainties of the site combine to
present a significant challenge to the potential development. The Developer understands they
must pay their own way; however, they believe that without some level of assistance from the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) the project will not proceed. The
Developer would like to explore the ability of the Authority to assist in funding several items:
1. Redwood Extension & Bridge – Extending Redwood Street and the associated bridge
over the Larimer Weld Irrigation Company ditch presents a cost not typically
encountered by this type of development. In addition, it provides an opportunity to
increase access to the site and area. As a public improvement, the road extension and
bridge represent the type of project costs that have been supported with URA tax
increment funding in the past. Associated costs to mitigate impacts may also be included
along with the road itself.
2. Relocation of Transformers – In order to clear the way for the extension of Redwood
Street, two larger transformers and an electric pole will need to be relocated during
construction. This type of cost is consistent with past support by the URA.
3. Natural Area – Finally, the site presents an opportunity to potentially deliver Nature in
the City through the creation/extension of natural habitat adjacent to the irrigation ditch.
The Developer may seek assistance for constructing and preserving this opportunity. This
type of support is consistent with past URA projects.
NEXT STEPS:
The proposed project is conceptual. A significant amount of due diligence, planning, and
analysis remains before the project can proceed. However, the Developer requested an
opportunity to get early input from the Committee on the project concept before proceeding.
Based on input from the Committee, staff will engage with the developer to undertaking the
following next steps:
1. Complete a Formal Application – The first step in the process to receive Authority
assistance is for the Developer to a complete a formal application. This application
requires the developer provide several key documents, including: site plan, financial pro
forma, construction costs, and request for assistance. The Developer will need to
complete additional work before these documents can be provided to the Authority.
2. Prepare a Financial Analysis – After receiving a formal application and financial pro
forma, the Authority will commission an independent third-party evaluation of the
financial need or “but for” of the project. This analysis will form the basis of negotiations
with the Developer.
3. Develop Initial Terms of Assistance – Once a financial gap has been determined,
Authority staff and the Developer will negotiate the terms of assistance. These terms will
include the amount of assistance, the percentage of property tax increment to share, and
other conditions as necessary.
4. Present Terms to the Committee – Finally, Authority staff will present the terms of
assistance to the Committee for review and input before presenting a complete
Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”) to the Authority Board.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Josh Birks, Developer looking for URA Finance Committee’s overall thoughts on project and
interest in URA partnership. Typical & Atypical project costs encountered thus far.
Atypical project costs include: Bridge Structure, Extension of Redwood, moving utilities,
stormwater connection and bisecting easements of site. Atypical project costs may be eligible for
TIF monies. Project provides Natural Area as part of larger community benefit.
Josh Birks, Developer has filed no formal application, no Financial Analysis has been completed
at this time. Site is within existing North College URA area. Focus is more how do we best use
the URA funds, 11 years left in North College plan area.
Joe Wise: What are the estimated costs? Thinks this meets the criteria and is a good idea based
on three presented concepts
Watermark: Close to million. Roughly 60 million dollar project.
Ken Summers: Agrees with presented three concpets, relates to previous discussion on URA and
direct goals of URA.
Ross Cunniff: Would like more documentation on how a collector is in needs of URA funds.
Looking for analysis of impacts/improvements of surrounding area. ROW easement, can we
consolidate easements to one? Can see how easements are a greater obstacle. Is nature in the City
or natural areas the right partner?
Wade Troxell: There is infrastructure on property, serving properties outside city and outside
water. Where are City limits in relation to property? Don’t want to deflect costs. Ought to utilize
North CAG for greater perspective. What about affordable housing in area?
Josh Birks: Met with North CAG and they were generally supportive of project. Will do more
research.
Meeting Adjourned: 11:16am
URBAN RENEWAL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks
Date: February 11, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
North College Drainage Improvement District (NCDID) Funding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present an Intergovernmental Agreement (the “IGA”) between the
City of Fort Collins (the “City”) and the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the
“Authority”), which memorializes the terms of acceptance of $300,000 in Authority support for
the City’s continued design of the North College Drainage Improvement District (“NCDID”),
including transportation designs for North Mason Street (Alpine Street to Hickory Street), along
with Alpine Street, Pinon Street and Hemlock Street (Mason Street to North College Avenue)
(the “Project”). The 2019 Authority Budget accounted for and appropriated funds for this
obligation. In addition, the 2019 City Budget includes additional funding for the Project from
two sources in City: Engineering and Stormwater.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the IGA?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The North College Urban Renewal Plan Area (the “Plan Area”) was established in 2004. A
drainage analysis and report for the North College Drainage Improvement District (“NCDID”)
area was initially completed in 2006 (Ayres and Associates). In recent years, there has been
increased interest and support by the North College Citizens Advisory Group (the “CAG”) to
implement the necessary street and stormwater improvements needed to promote development
and re-development in the area. The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”)
funded an update to the NCDID analysis completed in June 2017 (Ayers and Associates). The
report includes conceptual stormwater improvements, cost estimates and a phased
implementation approach. The approximate study area is shown in Attachment 2
Funding Overview
The City and the Authority approved $767,800 in funding for the continued design of the
NCDID, including transportation designs for North Mason Street (from Alpine Street to Hickory
Street), along with Alpine Street, Pinon Street and Hemlock Street (from Mason Street to North
College Avenue) (the “Project”) in their respective 2019 Budgets.
The Authority must take an additional step to commit its funds to the Project. This step includes
reviewing and approving an intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) between the City and the
Authority obligating the Authority to pay $300,000 to defray Project costs, see Attachment 3.
The IGA is consistent with similar IGAs previously approved by the Authority; the most recent
example being the $300,000 commitment to assist the Whitewater Park project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. North College Drainage Improvement District Area Map
3. Draft Intergovernmental Agreement
2/7/2019
1
1
North College Drainage Improvement District Funding
February 11, 2019
Josh Birks, Economic Health & Redevelopment Director
Direction Sought
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the IGA?
2
1
2
2/7/2019
2
Goal of NCDID Project
3
The goal of NCDID is to develop a
drainage design that will mitigate
local flooding (up to and including
the 100-year storm event).
The area is generally north of the
Poudre River, west of College
Avenue, south of the Larimer and
Weld Canal, and east of the Union
Pacific Railroad (UPRR).
NCDID Area
4
3
4
2/7/2019
3
Intergovernmental Agreement
• 2019 Authority Budget, included:
• $300,000 to contribute towards this project
• Funds were appropriated during budget adoption
• Intergovernmental Agreement:
• Creates obligation to pay between the Authority and City
• City Council will consider the IGA after Board approval
5
Direction Sought
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the IGA?
6
5
6
30.9 acres
105.4 acres
31.0 acres
N COLLEGE AVE
CHERRY ST
W WILLOX LN
PINE
WOOD ST
ELM ST
HICKORY ST
E VINE DR
SYCAMORE ST
ELM
BLUE SPRUCE DR
BIRCH
HEMLOCK ST
CONIFER ST
E WILLOX LN
LINDEN ST
CAJETAN ST
WOOD LN
OSIANDER ST
SPAULDING LN
JEROME ST
W VINE DR
PARK ST
E SUNIGA RD
PASCAL ST
ASPEN
N GRANT AVE
OAK
WEST ST
ELM CT
SNOWY OWL CIR
ELM ST
. 0 245 490 980 1,470 Printed: 1,05/960 12/2016
Feet
North College Drainage Area
EXHIBIT A
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS AND THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
REGARDING THE AUTHORITY’S CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR THE NORTH
COLLEGE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____
day of ________, 2019, (this “Agreement”) by and between the City of Fort Collins, a Colorado
home rule municipality (the “City”), and the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, a corporate
body and political subdivision of the state (the “Authority”). The City and Authority shall also
hereafter be jointly referred to as “Parties” or individually as “Party.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Fort Collins City Council adopted Resolution 2004-152
approving the North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, which it amended in 2015 in Resolution
2015-106 (the “North College Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the North College Plan was adopted to facilitate the elimination and
prevention of blighted areas within the plan area identified in the Plan (the “Plan Area”) by
promoting and assisting undertakings and activities within the Plan Area involving the
development, redevelopment and rehabilitation of Plan Area properties as part of a single urban
renewal project (the “North College Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) implements and
administers the North College Plan; and
WHEREAS, a drainage analysis and report for the North College Drainage Improvement
District (“NCDID”) area was completed in 2006, and updated in June 2017, and includes
conceptual stormwater improvements, cost estimates and a phased implementation approach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins (“City”) is designing the NCDID improvements,
including transportation designs for North Mason Street (Alpine Street to Hickory Street), along
with Alpine Street, Pinon Street and Hemlock Street (Mason Street to North College Avenue) (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority’s Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) has reviewed the
Project and identified several benefits it will provide in furtherance of the North College Plan’s
goal to eliminate blight and redevelop the Plan Area to meet the needs and expectations of the
Authority, the surrounding neighborhood, and the City at large, which benefits include, without
limitation: (i) improvements to portions of North Mason Street, Alpine Street, Pinon Street and
Hemlock Street, (ii) stormwater improvements that will reduce the likelihood that College Avenue
in the Plan Area will overtop during a flood, and (iii) improvements that will improve connectivity
between the Plan Area and downtown Fort Collins (collectively, the “Project Benefits”); and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Authority desires to contribute $300,000 to help fund the
Project; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the Project Benefits, the Board has adopted Authority
Resolution No. 2019-____ approving this Agreement and appropriating $300,000 to be paid to the
City to help fund the Project, which is estimated to cost a total of approximately $767,800; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also approved this Agreement in its Resolution 2019-
_____ in order to accept the funds for the Project from the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Authority are authorized to enter into this Agreement to
cooperate in the funding and construction of the Project pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-1-203 and the
Colorado Urban Renewal Law, including, without limitation, C.R.S. § 31-25-112, and the City is
further authorized to do so under City Charter Article II, Section 16.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the Parties hereby acknowledge,
the Parties agree as follows:
1. The Authority’s Obligation. The Authority agrees to pay the City three hundred
thousand dollars ($300,000) within sixty (60) days after the City enters into the contract with the
party it retains for the Project, provided such contract includes the improvements that will provide
the Project Benefits.
2. TABOR. The Parties understand and acknowledge that the Authority is not subject
to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The Parties
therefore intend that the Authority’s debt obligation in Section 1 above is a binding obligation
enforceable by the City at law and in equity as provided in Section 3 below and such enforcement
is not contingent upon the future appropriation of funds by the Board.
3. Remedies Upon Default. Upon the failure of either Party to comply with any of
its obligations contained herein (a “Default”), the non-defaulting Party shall provide written notice
of the Default to the defaulting Party. Immediately upon receipt of such notice, the defaulting
Party shall promptly cure such Default within thirty (30) days, or if not susceptible of cure within
thirty (30) days, within such time as agreed upon by the non-defaulting Party for the cure of such
Default. If the defaulting Party fails to cure or remedy the Default within the time period
prescribed, the non-defaulting Party may protect and enforce any or all of its rights and the
obligations of the defaulting Party under this Agreement by suit in equity or action at law, in
Larimer County District Court, whether for the specific performance of any covenants or
agreements in this Agreement or otherwise, or take any action authorized or permitted under
applicable law, and may require and enforce the performance of all acts and things required to be
performed hereunder by the other Party. Each and every remedy of either Party shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be cumulative and shall be in addition to any other remedy given hereunder or
now or hereafter existing at law or in equity.
4. Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended, changed, modified or
altered in a writing signed by both Parties.
5. Implementing Agreements and Further Assurances. The Parties agree to
execute such other documents, and take such other actions, as will be reasonably requested by the
other Party to confirm or clarify the intent of the provisions hereof and to effectuate the agreements
herein contained.
6. Term; Termination. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the
Authority’s debt obligation under this Agreement is paid in full to the City. However, in the event
the City does not enter into a contract with the party it retains for the Project by December 31,
2019, this Agreement shall terminate and both Parties shall be released from all remaining
obligations under this Agreement.
7. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. No term or provision of this Agreement is intended
to be for the benefit of any person, entity, association or organization not a party to this Agreement,
and no such other person, entity, association or organization shall have any right or cause of action
hereunder.
8. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
under the laws of the State of Colorado and the venue for any judicial proceedings related to this
Agreement shall be in Larimer County District Court.
9. Section Headings. The captions or headings herein are for convenience or
reference only and shall in no way define or limit the scope or intent of any provision or section
of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as the date and year
first above written.
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
By:
Darin A. Atteberry, Executive Director
ATTESTED:
By:
Authority Clerk
Print Name:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Authority Legal Counsel
Print Name:
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
By:
Wade Troxell, Mayor
ATTESTED:
By:
City Clerk
Print Name:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Deputy City Attorney
Print Name:
URBAN RENEWAL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks
Date: February 11, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update – Public Benefits & Improvement Costs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”)
Finance Committee (the “Committee”) on the proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan
(the “Plan”). The update will focus primarily on the proposed uses of incremental property and
sales tax revenues within the Plan. The committee will discuss the proposed list of public
improvements and prioritization of the same.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed public improvements to be
included in the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan?
2. How would the Committee prioritize the proposed public improvements?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins (the “City”) is considering the adoption of a new Urban Renewal Plan,
at the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road, (the “Plan”) to direct the activities of the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”), pursuant to the Colorado Urban
Renewal Law, C.R.S. §31-25-101 et seq.
The Plan enables the use of Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) as a tool to stimulate and leverage
both public and private sector development, including redevelopment, to help remedy adverse
conditions and prevent the spread of further deterioration. The Plan effort originated in response
to two proposals for private development in the area. While these two projects are anticipated to
occur in the near term, additional development and redevelopment may occur incrementally over
the life of the Plan.
In 2014, the Larimer County Tax Increment Financing Study Group (the “TIF Study Group”)
was formed of representatives from Larimer County, municipalities in the county currently using
urban renewal (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Timnath), five other municipalities, and selected
taxing districts and special districts. The TIF Study group:
Acknowledged the positive impact of TIF in providing needed financial support for
redevelopment and economic development investments in the County; and
Convened because of concerns about requirements to provide services to the new
development created by urban renewal supported by TIF.
The TIF Study Group had three primary objectives:
1. Develop a method to qualify and quantify the fiscal and economic impacts and
financial risks of TIF proposals;
2. Develop a way to evaluate the indirect impacts of TIF projects and corresponding
financial effects on taxing entities; and
3. Establish a framework for formal agreements that balance the benefits and risks
among participating entities in Larimer County.
To achieve objective three (3) above. The Plan Area Review Committee (the “PRC”)
recommends that the Plan include a specific set of improvements to be funded in part or fully by
TIF. This list of improvements would then be attached to any intergovernmental agreement
(“IGA”) between the Authority and an impacted tax entity. The intent is to provide a clear list of
the uses of TIF prior to adopting the plan. Once all improvements on the listed are fully funded
and constructed any the collection of TIF would terminate with revenue reverting back to the
appropriate entity. This would apply to all incremental property tax revenue and sales tax
revenue.
Revenue Sources: An Overview
An estimate of the available incremental property tax and sales tax revenue is provided in Table
1. This estimate of revenue provides a useful input in evaluating the potential public
improvements to be funded through the Plan. The estimated annual increment property and sales
tax revenue totals approximately $750,000 annually. A conservative estimate of the total revenue
generated by increment is approximately $17.8 million; assuming 24 years of collections
(allowing for some delay in values accruing after construction). The current estimate of revenue
follows the Authority’s practice and policy of assuming no appreciation over the life of the plan.
This is a conservative assumption.
For reference and equity comparison, Table 1 also shows the relative amount of annual revenue
each taxing entity would pledge to the proposed Plan. Excluding the City, the average
commitment is approximately 0.12 percent annually.
Table 1
Sources of Incremental Property and Sales Tax Revenue
NOTE: All estimates are approximate and based on assumptions for allocation coming from the Fiscal Impact Model (“FIM”). These estimates are subject to
change through negotiation and refinement.
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source
Mills /
Rate
Assumptions
Annual
Increment
Total Increment
Approx. Share of
Annual Revenue
City of Fort Collins / Property Tax 10.297 100% of Increment Committed $ 93,018 $ 2,232,426 0.38%
City of Fort Collins / Sales Tax 2.25% 50% of Increment Committed $ 316,713 $ 7,601,100 0.37%
Larimer County / Property Tax 21.153 60% of Increment Committed $ 114,651 $ 2,751,627 0.11%
Health District / Property Tax 2.167 66% of Increment Committed $ 12,920 $ 310,077 0.16%
Library District / Property Tax 3.000 66% of Increment Committed $ 17,886 $ 429,271 0.19%
Foothillls Gateway / Property Tax 0.750 53% of Increment Committed $ 3,591 $ 86,179 0.09%
Poudre School District / Property Tax 52.630 20.25 Mills of Increment Committed $ 182,928 $ 4,390,272 0.14%
Northern Water / Property Tax 1.000 No Increment Committed $ - $ - 0.00%
Larimer County Pest Control District / Property Tax 0.142 60% of Increment Committed $ 770 $ 18,472 0.12%
Total $ 742,476 $ 17,819,424
Proposed Public Improvements:
The intent of creating the Plan and collecting TIF is to remove economic impediments and
prevent the spread of further deterioration in a geographically defined area. Authority staff has
worked closely with City staff from Transportation Planning, Traffic Operations, Engineering,
and Planning to identify a list of improvements that address the existing and anticipated future
impediments to reinvestment in the Plan. The list of improvements is presented in Table 2 and
grouped by major category:
Development Related (Financial Gap) – These improvements are required to be built
by the two private redevelopment projects proposed in the near term. These
improvements are typically built and paid for by private development; however some TIF
may be needed to address project feasibility or the “but for” financial gap.
Plan Area Improvements (Blight Remediation) – These public improvements address
blighted conditions and will improve conditions throughout the Plan area. The
improvements are not requirements of private development through the Development
Review process. These improvements are expected to be paid for primarily from TIF.
Additional Opportunities (Community Benefit) – These improvements include long
term projects that deliver broader community benefit and / or require additional study.
City staff is still developing some of the cost estimates; however, the list of potential
improvements is substantially complete. Therefore, the potential use of TIF will not expand
beyond the listed items but may increase in total amount. The current estimate of cost totals
approximately $27.9 million over $10.0 million in excess of the anticipated revenue generated in
the plan. However, some portion of the Development Related costs will be funded by the private
sector and not TIF. This will serve to reduce the total amount in part (still being determined and
based on the third-party “but for” financial analysis).
The anticipated uses of TIF exceed the projected TIF revenue. Therefore, prioritization will be
important because it will define the order that improvements will be constructed, whether
through bond issuance or pay-as-you-go. The conservative TIF revenue estimated may fall below
the actual TIF revenue collections, therefore, prioritizing a list of improvements that exceeds
revenue estimates is also useful. That way the total use of TIF is still clear and limited but allows
for some potential benefit beyond that anticipated from initial projects.
Table 2
Potential Uses of Increment Revenue – Public Improvements Matrix
Item
Development
Related
(Financial Gap)
Plan Area
Improvements
(Blight Remediation)
Plan Related
Expenditures
(Subtotal)
Additional
Opportunities
(Community Benefit)
Total
Intersection Improvements & Safety $ 1,400,000 $ 2,525,000 $ 3,925,000 $ - $ 3,925,000
1. Dual Left Turns EB Drake to NB College $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000
2. Pedestrian Refuge Islands (Drake & College) $ 225,000 $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ 225,000
3. Relocate College Ave. Street Lights from Medians $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000
4. Color concrete crosswalks at Drake & College (4 Total) $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000
5. New Traffic Signal System at Drake & College $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000
6. Extend Concrete Pavement on Drake for College Approach $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000
7. Dual Left Turns WB Drake to SB College $ - $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000
Bicycle & Multi-Use Improvements & Safety $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000
1. McClelland & MAX Promenade $ - $ - $ -
2. Eastside College Multi-use path $ - $ - $ - $ -
3. Bike & Pedestrian Grade Seperated Crossing - Mason Trail $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000
Traffic Safety Improvements $ 400,000 $ 850,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000
1. Mid-block left turns on Drake - College & McClelland $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000
2. Access / turn lane improvements on Drake - College to Redwing $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000
3. Access / turn lane improvement on Drake - College to Harvard $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000
Parking Management $ - $ - $ - $ 11,000,000 $ 11,000,000
1. Drake MAX Station Parking Structure $ - $ - $ - $ 11,000,000 $ 11,000,000
Pedestrian & Sidewalk Improvements
(ADA Compliance)
$ 850,000 $ - $ 850,000 $ - $ 850,000
1. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ - $ 850,000
2. Mid-Block Drive Sidewalk Enhancements $ - $ - $ - $ -
Landscaping & Streetscape $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000
1. Landscape Medians Per Streetscape Standards $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000
Stormwater $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1. College Avenue Stormwater Inlet Replacement & Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transit Access & Improvements $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000
1. Bus Stop Improvements on Drake Road (4 Total) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Other Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000
1. Drake ductile water line replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2. Underground Storage Tank Remediation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
3. On-site Low Impact Design Requirements (Water Quality) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
4. Affordable Housing $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Subtotal $ 2,700,000 $ 8,925,000 $ 11,625,000 $ 11,600,000 $ 23,225,000
Contingency (@ 20 Percent) $ 540,000 $ 1,785,000 $ 2,325,000 $ 2,320,000 $ 4,645,000
Total $ 3,240,000 $ 10,710,000 $ 13,950,000 $ 13,920,000 $ 27,870,000
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2/7/2019
1
1
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
February 11, 2018
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
Public Benefit & Improvements
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
Public Benefit & Improvements
Questions for the Board
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed public
improvements to be included in the College and Drake Urban
Renewal Plan?
2. How would the Committee prioritize the proposed public
improvements?
2
1
2
34
2/7/2019
2
Sources: Revenue Estimates
3
NOTE: Estimates are subject to change through negotiation
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source
Mills /
Rate
Assumptions
Annual
Increment
Total Increment
Approx. Share of
Annual Revenue
City of Fort Collins / Property Tax 10.297 100% of Increment Committed $ 93,018 $ 2,232,426 0.38%
City of Fort Collins / Sales Tax 2.25% 50% of Increment Committed $ 316,713 $ 7,601,100 0.37%
Larimer County / Property Tax 21.153 60% of Increment Committed $ 114,651 $ 2,751,627 0.11%
Health District / Property Tax 2.167 66% of Increment Committed $ 12,920 $ 310,077 0.16%
Library District / Property Tax 3.000 66% of Increment Committed $ 17,886 $ 429,271 0.19%
Foothillls Gateway / Property Tax 0.750 53% of Increment Committed $ 3,591 $ 86,179 0.09%
Poudre School District / Property Tax 52.630 20.25 Mills of Increment Committed $ 182,928 $ 4,390,272 0.14%
Northern Water / Property Tax 1.000 No Increment Committed $ - $ - 0.00%
Larimer County Pest Control District / Property Tax 0.142 60% of Increment Committed $ 770 $ 18,472 0.12%
Total $ 742,476 $ 17,819,424
Uses: Public Improvements
4
Item
Development
Related
(Financial Gap)
Plan Area
Improvements
(Blight Remediation)
Plan Related
Expenditures
(Subtotal)
Additional
Opportunities
(Community Benefit)
Total
Intersection Improvements & Safety $ 1,400,000 $ 2,525,000 $ 3,925,000 $ - $ 3,925,000
1. Dual Left Turns EB Drake to NB College $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000
2. Pedestrian Refuge Islands (Drake & College) $ 225,000 $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ 225,000
3. Relocate College Ave. Street Lights from Medians $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000
4. Color concrete crosswalks at Drake & College (4 Total) $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000
5. New Traffic Signal System at Drake & College $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000
6. Extend Concrete Pavement on Drake for College Approach $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000
7. Dual Left Turns WB Drake to SB College $ - $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000
3
4
2/7/2019
3
Uses: Public Improvements
5
Item
Development
Related
(Financial Gap)
Plan Area
Improvements
(Blight Remediation)
Plan Related
Expenditures
(Subtotal)
Additional
Opportunities
(Community Benefit)
Total
Bicycle & Multi-Use Improvements & Safety $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000
1. McClelland & MAX Promenade $ - $ - $ -
2. Eastside College Multi-use path $ - $ - $ - $ -
3. Bike & Pedestrian Grade Seperated Crossing - Mason Trail $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000
Traffic Safety Improvements $ 400,000 $ 850,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000
1. Mid-block left turns on Drake - College & McClelland $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000
2. Access / turn lane improvements on Drake - College to Redwing $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000
3. Access / turn lane improvement on Drake - College to Harvard $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000
Uses: Public Improvements
6
Item
Development
Related
(Financial Gap)
Plan Area
Improvements
(Blight Remediation)
Plan Related
Expenditures
(Subtotal)
Additional
Opportunities
(Community Benefit)
Total
Parking Management $ - $ - $ - $ 11,000,000 $ 11,000,000
1. Drake MAX Station Parking Structure $ - $ - $ - $ 11,000,000 $ 11,000,000
Pedestrian & Sidewalk Improvements
(ADA Compliance)
$ 850,000 $ - $ 850,000 $ - $ 850,000
1. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ - $ 850,000
2. Mid-Block Drive Sidewalk Enhancements $ - $ - $ - $ -
Landscaping & Streetscape $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000
1. Landscape Medians Per Streetscape Standards $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000
Stormwater $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1. College Avenue Stormwater Inlet Replacement & Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transit Access & Improvements $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000
1. Bus Stop Improvements on Drake Road (4 Total) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
5
6
2/7/2019
4
Uses: Public Improvements
7
Item
Development
Related
(Financial Gap)
Plan Area
Improvements
(Blight Remediation)
Plan Related
Expenditures
(Subtotal)
Additional
Opportunities
(Community Benefit)
Total
Other Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000
1. Drake ductile water line replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2. Underground Storage Tank Remediation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
3. On-site Low Impact Design Requirements (Water Quality) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
4. Affordable Housing $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Subtotal $ 2,700,000 $ 8,925,000 $ 11,625,000 $ 11,600,000 $ 23,225,000
Contingency (@ 20 Percent) $ 540,000 $ 1,785,000 $ 2,325,000 $ 2,320,000 $ 4,645,000
Total $ 3,240,000 $ 10,710,000 $ 13,950,000 $ 13,920,000 $ 27,870,000
Sources vs. Uses
Revenue contributions create an equitable distribution
Potential Uses (Expenses) exceed projected Sources (Revenue)
Note: revenue projections are conservative intentionally
Prioritization provides guidance on use of revenue should it exceed
projections
Use of TIF will be limited to the final proposed set of improvements
8
7
8
37
2/7/2019
5
Questions for the Board
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed public
improvements to be included in the College and Drake Urban
Renewal Plan?
2. How would the Committee prioritize the proposed public
improvements?
9
9
38
URBAN RENEWAL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks
Date: February 11, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update – Negotiations & Schedule
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the
"Authority") Board (the "Board") an update on the incremental property tax allocation
discussions taking place with the impacted tax entities. Authority staff has been engaging with
the entities through the Plan Area Review Committee (the "PRC") and individually for the past
several months. These discussions are beginning to come to a head and staff would like to report
on the current status.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the current negotiations in support of the
College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins (the “City”) is considering the adoption of a new Urban Renewal Plan,
at the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road, (the “Plan”) to direct the activities of the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”), pursuant to the Colorado Urban
Renewal Law, C.R.S. §31-25-101 et seq.
The Plan enables the use of Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) as a tool to stimulate and leverage
both public and private sector development, including redevelopment, to help remedy adverse
conditions and prevent the spread of further deterioration. The Plan effort originated in response
to two proposals for private development in the area. While these two projects are anticipated to
occur in the near term, additional development and redevelopment may occur incrementally over
the life of the Plan.
Authority Staff has engaged with the impacted tax entities through the Plan Area Review
Committee (the “PRC”) and individually, below is a short summary of the status with each:
Larimer County – Authority and County staff have met twice to discuss the allocation
and the Commissioners have reviewed the proposal – staff feels confident this agreement
will be supported soon by the Commissioners (NOTE: these conversations have also
included the Foothills Gateway and Larimer County Pest Control Districts);
Poudre School District (PSD) – Authority and PSD staff have met twice to discuss the
terms of an allocation agreement, many aspects of the agreement are settled; however,
one aspect remains a sticking point – the PSD Board of Education will review the current
terms at their February 12, 2019 meeting
Poudre River Library District – Authority and Library staff have met to discuss the
terms of an allocation agreement; Library staff will present the current terms to the Board
and provide additional feedback to Authority staff
Northern Larimer County Health District – Authority and Health District staff have
met to discuss the terms of an allocation agreement – the conversation was productive,
and staff has scheduled a second meeting to review the Health District’s response
Northern Water Conservation District – Authority staff remains in contact with
Northern staff; however, no direct meetings have occurred – Northern has made their
position relative to allocation clear
SCHEDULE UPDATE
A summary schedule is attached – see Attachment 2. This schedule is subject to change based
on several factors.
Below is a summary of key dates in the schedule:
Late September to February – A series of meetings with the PRC to review the URP and
the FIM resulting in recommendations for tax allocations. These meetings are still being
scheduled as a result dates in the schedule are meant to be representative only.
January and February – Several dates on which each affected tax entity’s board will
consider approval of a tax allocation IGA.
March 24, 2019 – The URA Board considers approving the tax allocation IGAs.
April 16, 2019 – City Council conducts a public hearing to consider approval of the URP.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Updated Key Dates by Actor
2/7/2019
1
1
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
February 11, 2018
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
Negotiations & Schedule
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
Negotiations & Schedule
Questions for the Board
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the current
negotiations in support of the College and Drake Urban Renewal
Plan?
2
1
2
41
2/7/2019
2
Negotiations Update
Larimer County – Productive and nearing agreement
Includes: Foothills Gateway & Larimer County Pest Control
Poudre School District – Productive, key items remains unresolved
Library District – Productive, awaiting their Board’s feedback
Health District – Productive, awaiting feedback from their team
Northern Water – Minimal engagment
3
Key Dates
4
PRC REVIEW
Council
Adoption
April 16,
2019
Public
Open House
Oct. 10,
2018
P&Z
Review
Nov. 15,
2018
TAX ALLOCATIONS
Authority
Approves
Allocations
Mar. 24,
2019
Negotiations
Entities
Approve
Allocations
March
2019
Key Takeaway: continued delay; 120 days ends March 10, 2019*
3
4
42
2/7/2019
3
Questions for the Board
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the current
negotiations in support of the College and Drake Urban Renewal
Plan?
5
5
43