HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 3/19/2019 - Urban Renewal Authority Finance Committee Agenda - March 19, 2019 And Ura 6-Month Agenda Planning Calendar March - September 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
March 19, 2019
11:00 am -12:00 pm
1. Approval of 1/08/18, 2/27/18 & 2/11/19
URA Finance Committee Minutes
2. Review TIF Allocations
Other Business:
URA 6-MONTH PLANNING CALENDAR
March 2019 – September 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
City Council Finance Committee
Created: 3/14/2019 11:14 AM
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House City Council Finance Committee
Meeting Info Agenda Item The purpose of this item is to…
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 18
Time:
10:00am
Location: City
Council
Chambers
City Council Finance Committee: Discussion: City Sales Tax contribution to Urban Renewal Plan Area
March 19
Time: 11am
Location: CIC
Room
URA Finance Committee: Minutes
(consent)
URA Finance Committee to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2019 and
January 8, 2018 meeting minutes
Review TIF Allocations Review Tax Increment Finance (TIF) allocations within proposed Urban Renewal
Plan Area
March 28
Time: 2:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting:
TIF Allocation IGAs and Urban
Renewal Plan Recommendation
Approve Tax Increment Finance (TIF) allocation agreements and recommend Urban
Renewal Plan (URP)
Legal Contract Review Committee Adopt resolution forming and appointing members to the Legal Contract Review
Committee for the purpose of review outside service contracts for the URA Board
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House City Council Finance Committee
Meeting Info Agenda Item The purpose of this item is to…
Cooperation Agreement and Plan
Recommendation
Approve City Tax cooperation agreement and recommend adoption of the Urban
Renewal Plan Area
April 16
Time: 6:00pm
Location: City
Council
Chambers
City Council: Adopt an urban
renewal plan area (Consent)
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
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-
12pm
Location:
TBD
URA Board Meeting URA Board Half Day Retreat: Strategic Planning Session
Strategic Planning Session Set URA Board Goals & Visions for 2019-2020
URA Board Meeting Selection Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Plan Area Review Committee URA Finance Committee City Council Meeting
Public Open House City Council Finance Committee
Meeting Info Agenda Item The purpose of this item is to…
July 25
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting Agenda: TBD
August 22
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting Agenda: TBD
September 26
Time: 3:00pm
Location: CIC
URA Board Meeting Agenda: TBD
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 02/25/2019 mnb
Location: CIC Room
(Agenda Items listed in no particular order)
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
19th
Meeting Time: 11:00am
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
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Urban Renewal Authority Committee
01/08/18
10:45 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers, Gerry Horak
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, Travis Storin, John Duval, Andres
Gavaldon, Tyler Marr, Joanne Cech, Josh Birks, Patrick Rowe, Matt Fater, Kurt
Friesen, Matthew Day
Others: North College URA Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) members including;
Tim Kenney, CAG Chair, Dean Hoag, Ron Lautzenheiser, Grant Sherwood, Don
Butler and Chris Sheafor.
Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Dale Adamy (Citizen)
Meeting called to order at 10:40 am
Josh Birks; Mayor Troxell was references changes that have occurred as a result of HB15-1328, namely
for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to expand. We do have an official triggering event
forthcoming with the consideration of a new plan area. We are moving right now to go ahead and
expand that Board. The URA Finance Committee has historically been the same as Council Finance
because the boards have been the same. Some of the other related changes we working through are
what changes need to be made to the URA bylaws as a result of being expanded. Presently, we have
not reconstituted the full URA Board. We are still in the space where the URA Council Finance
Committee is the same, that might change, we will keep Council and the URA Board informed of what
changes are being made and what a timeline for this would be as well.
Mayor Troxell; because we are expanding - 1st
principles - where and when to meet- think about URA
governance going forward - not something tacked on to Council Finance Meetings
Gerry Horak; when will be advertise for new 11th
board member?
Patrick Rowe; we are coordinating that process with the City Clerk’s office - we will follow the normal
Boards & Commission appointment process.
Gerry Horak; we need to get the message out as this is an important appointment - use some social
media sites and the business community - making sure they know
2
A. North College URA Strategy
Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Coordinator
Several North College URA Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) members are in attendance.
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
North College Plan area challenges and opportunities discussion with members of the North College
Citizens Advisory Group.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide background information that may be helpful to the Finance
Committee with its discussion with members of the North College Citizens Advisory Group.
The North College Urban Renewal Authority (URA) tax increment financing will conclude in 2030. With
only 13 years of tax increment collections remaining, and several years fewer after a new project is
constructed and assessed, the value of remaining tax increment is depreciated. For this reason, it’s
important for the URA to be strategic with a final investment effort in the area. In this vein, the URA
along with its consultant Economic and Planning Systems, is undertaking a strategic investment plan
for North College, while simultaneously exploring specific investment opportunities including, notably,
a west side regional storm system.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
This item and discussion is an opportunity for the North College Citizens Advisory Group to interface
with the URA Finance Committee. No direction is being sought by Staff at this time; as the strategic
investment plan solidifies, Staff anticipates future URA Finance Committee engagement.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The North College Urban Renewal Plan area was established in 2004. Generally, the plan area is
comprised of the North College Avenue commercial corridor extending from the Poudre River on the
south to the City limits on the north. With a 25-year life, the North College tax increment will conclude
with a final collection in 2030. This leaves the URA with 13 years of increment collections remaining,
and several years fewer after accounting for the time lag to generate new increment due to
entitlement, construction/assessment, and increment collection. In recognition of this waning
opportunity, Staff is engaged in a strategic planning exercise to identify and prioritize investment
opportunities in the North College area.
The URA has engaged Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to assist in producing a North College
Strategic Investment Plan. Staff is in receipt of a draft report, which includes the following preliminary
conclusions:
• Specific Focus Area strategies – Identification and specific strategies in 3 key areas of opportunity
and impact.
• Lacking key infrastructure.
3
• More proactive role in land assembly – In recognition of the challenges due to the fragmented
ownership of the area.
• Consider land banking property suitable for affordable housing – In recognition that the plan area
contains moderately priced land that may be developed and/or land banked for affordable housing
purposes.
• Storefront Improvement Program - to beautify and improve existing local retailers and businesses.
The next steps of the strategic investment plan effort include:
• Modifying the focus area strategies to take account of the availability of key parcels necessary to
facilitate development and/or public projects.
• Further analysis on the west side stormwater system, including refinements to new increment
projections and potential phasing.
• Additional analysis on prioritization of focus areas and area wide strategies.
Staff anticipates completion of the strategic investment plan in February.
Color coding is four different drainage areas with different drainage plans and also identifies phasing
130 acres drainage area
• Three regional Ponds
• 5,550 lf of storm sewer
• Infill context challenges
• Uncertainty of alignment
• ROW Acquisition
• Numerous utility conflicts
• Boring under RR
4
There is $900k available which are the same funds which could be used for the Whitewater Park which
is the next presentation.
Mayor Troxell; was this part of the Hickory Commons project?
Patrick Rowe; stormwater outfall - can serve some of the properties in that immediate vicinity. Hickory
Commons was the name of that project which would provide an outfall that some properties to the
west could tie into but not a solution for any other properties in terms of access or capacity.
Goals of the North College Drainage Improvement Design (NCDID) Project
• Mitigate local flooding (up to and including the 100-year storm event)
• Stormwater outfall for existing development and projected new development
• Regional water quality and detention for development
5
One of the challenges is prioritization of this project is a concern - the City prioritizes projects based on
risk -
URA can help on the development side or the city side and bridge financing gap
• Fund balance
• Existing annual increment
• New increment resulting from new development (~8 years increment)
• Seed funding to advance design (~60% level – partial reimbursement by stormwater)
Next Steps:
• Stormwater CIP Updates and Prioritization
• Updated Cost Estimates for Highest Priority Projects – Completed
• Updated prioritization to conclude Q1, 2018
6
• Design-Implementation Strategy
• Consider phasing / constraints / funding scenarios – Jan/Feb 2018
• URA may fund next level of design (w/ partial reimbursement from Stormwater at later
date)
• Budget Offer FY 2019/2020 (may be independent offer)
Discussion / Next Steps:
Move forward with a budget offer to be considered for City support / access URA funding /
participation.
Mike Beckstead; we will be looking at the CIP and Long Term Strategic Plans for the other utilities at
the Feb. 12th
Council Finance Committee meeting
Tim Kenney, North College CAG Chair; One of the things I would like to emphasize as we go through
the project opportunities that we have looked at over the years- each came with some requirements
re: Stormwater mitigation – on west side of College we began to see a trend that a larger burden was
put on property owners like the Lyric Cinema and Poudre Feed and Supply. We also see lots of
developed areas that are 10 years old that have a moat out front that doesn’t have any water. What is
the roadblock? How do we move forward as a unified front? This particular project which we have
been looking at for the last 1 – 1 ½ years- $7M in the grand scheme of the investments that have been
made in the North College area this amount is not that significant – however, we respect that $7M is
lot of money - as we looked at projects that didn’t advance who were wanting to use TIF financing in
the URA process basically pulled back because it still wasn’t enough. Some immediate funds we have
available - future cash flows that will be coming in should really focus on that 2019 - 2020 timeframe –
look at this with an opportunity focus
Look to a regional solution – that is what we want to advance today
Some immediate steps that we would recommend;
• Idea of advancing the design plan $300K
• Opportunity to share in terms of some funding coming from the City of Fort Collins via a loan type
structure which would be repaid by fees from the ultimate development of the properties
Dean Hoag, CAG Member; For the URA area the time is running out – to get the west side kick started -
to get this infrastructure in place would help in getting development underway. I know the City’s rule
is that development pays its own way on projects like this. We are looking at something different - City
front the money then development pays back - just to get this project going. At This point in time, it
makes sense for the URA to help with some of the gap of the $7M. Now is the time to take a look at
this and give stormwater some direction to get this moved up on their priority list.
Mayor Troxell; what were the 3 specific focus area strategies you mentioned? Please clarify what is
included and what is not.
7
Patrick Rowe; our exercise with Environmental Planning Specialists (EPS) is on-going – their approach
was to look at some very specific areas we could invest in. 3 specific focus areas for potential
development that we are taking a deeper dive into; Two of the focus areas are the vacant areas on the
west side of North College -south of Hickory and the third is the east side of College.
Mayor Troxell; this is more of a greenfield area - redevelopment area compared to downtown –
because of priorities that is why this wouldn’t show up as high on an overall city priority assessment.
Patrick Rowe; development on the west side will require some sort of outfall in order to develop to any
sort of density – in the focus areas they mention stormwater and street connectivity - more acute on
the west side where the ownership is more fragmented and the parcels are less developable -
One of the recommendations was to take a more active role in the land assemblage process and they
briefly outline what that could be (purchase parcels or to facilitate this with landowners)
Mayor Troxell; trying to understand what the ask is – CAG is saying stormwater improvements are a
priority in context with we have $900K less the Whitewater Park that is available – with diminishing
returns of using the URA to affect the TIF - point is if we support the stormwater that is kind of it.
Patrick Rowe; today we don’t have a specific URA request. I will let CAG speak for themselves - URA is
a diminishing opportunity in this area. The CAG requested an opportunity to talk with URA. We are
looking at further work with stormwater - we want to respect their prioritization process and allow
them to go through their process - then we will have a better idea what some of those funding
opportunities look like. From stormwater’s perspective - I would still like to see the design progress –
and that might be an opportunity but it is too early for me to ask about that as I am very actively
working with Stormwater at this point.
Ross Cunniff; what is the opportunity cost if we do something here? If we do something here that
means we can’t do something somewhere else because of the limit on our capacity.
Patrick Rowe; we are not prepared to answer that today - the concept areas that were are going install
the storm system - will create new increment – in this draft report we have a projection of what that
might look like – there will be some adjustments - opportunity cost from the URA’s perspective as well
as the city’s perspective.
Ron Lautzenehiser; we are not asking for any $$ - we are asking the city to take a look at reversing their
process and to consider lending for repayment.
Josh Birks; strategic investment - two parallel processes going on - very intentional evaluation of
opportunities
• opportunity cost - that work is still underway - we plan to come back and share when done - here
are some of the big steps we would like to do for our remaining
• at the same time CAG wanted to reengage with the Board - westside stormwater project -
8
as we think about limited time with the URA -What are some of the priorities? Have CAG share that
with this committee as a prologue to the conversation regarding strategic investment – here are some
of the big steps we need to look at in the time we have remaining.
Mayor Troxell; in that report will you build in the priorities from the CAG?
Josh Birks; yes
Ken Summers; is the design we are discussing more comprehensive than a sewage / drainage issue?
Would the $300K in terms of the design come out of the $900K?
Kurt Friesen; That is correct – this would provide us with a 60% certainty of being able to complete the
project.
Ken Summers; As we look at the sunseting of the URA, it seems that the design has to be a high priority
to get that going.
Darin Atteberry; I theoretically agree with Ken but I don’t know what the other priorities from the
design team efforts are. The Heat Map you showed – I assume you showed that to demonstrate that
you had other priorities - there is a great interest in trying to make something happen - design is one of
those steps that gets up closer.
Matt Fater; Heat Map slide - from an identified flood risk there are 1,100 structures that are still at risk
in the 100 year flood plain across town and that is what you see in red. The area west of North College
is not an identified risk to property.
Drainage Map slide - If nothing was redeveloped in that area there is still a need for stormwater
infrastructure -there has been a lot of development that occurred in that area including the mobile
home park and some other businesses that were built before there was stormwater criteria in place
and drainage design. If nothing happened - at some point as a Utility we would want to do a
stormwater and outfall plan - URA - opportunity before 2030 to share in some of those costs that
becomes the question - Do we accelerate that design ahead of other priorities because the URA would
be asked to help fund that? Greenfield developments out there – if they develop they will be required
to have retention and provide an outfall to river – more difficult because of the lack of a regional
system.
Ross Cunniff: of the $900K - if we spend 1/3 on design – I do understand this could provide increment
revenue at a later time, we need to understand at least conceptually what other important requests /
priorities are.
Patrick Rowe: if the $300k gets funded up by the URA upfront - we would look to hopefully replenish
some of those funds -
9
Ross Cunniff; upfronting the money could be possibly reasonable which depends on some certainty
that repayment would happen. Prospect / I25 IGA – what happens if nothing develops out there - are
we just out that money? The other part – the likelihood is high that if you do this project the
approximately 300 residents of the mobile home park could potentially be displaced - affordable
housing – think about triple bottom line - because of the probability of more lucrative commercial
environment – the financial pressure would be great for an owner to redevelop - some study needs to
be done upfront.
Patrick Rowe; this is a very conceptual design at this point - my expectation would be some sort of
phasing – that is an upstream component - cost benefit starts to change a bit -
Ross Cunniff; I am not opposed to idea of using this as a capital type fund that we get paid back later.
What do we do with the money when we collect it later? What would be the options?
Mayor Troxell; what is west of the old railbed - is that included in the North College?
Patrick Rowe: it is not included in our plan area because of the railroad - berm - all drains to the south
/ southwest towards the river – railroad acts as a barrier
Mayor Troxell; flood plain looks a lot like the Spring Creek - railroad. Where that became its own
barrier and spilled over into the trailer park and caused deaths. What is the dynamic here?
Patrick Rowe; Railroad embankment - drainage was coming all of the way from the foothills -this is a
very localized drainage area going up to the Larimer/ Weld ditch on the north side - we don’t
anticipate that type of impoundment against the railroad – more of a localized nuisance type of
problem right now - there are some gravel roads and pot holes back there so there is nowhere to drain
it.
Mayor Troxell; in terms of direction, I am supportive of going forward and looking at the holistic view
of stormwater. Priorities of the CAG into the draft plan to be finalized including payback mechanisms.
One of my takeaways is given the URA has 13 years, we are needing to get going on some things - what
are the highest and best use projects? stormwater project does have some of the benefits. Making the
case of how this fits in the context of the URA -
Patrick Rowe; there is a stormwater conversation at the next Council Finance Committee meeting –
Darin Atteberry; To the CAG members - sharing priorities with staff team and with Gerry Horak and Ray
Martinez as well - I get regular updates from those folks. There is opportunity costs - is this a priority?
What can we move forward with given other priorities? What can we outsource? One of the beautiful
things about the URA - the word leverage is really important to us - how do we leverage? Let’s go back
and figure out how these pieces all fit together for a Council discussion. Don’t know if we are in an
optimal time due to the upcoming budget cycle 2019-2020 - Optimal timing coming into a budget
10
process because we can delve in to priorities. Council considers that formally next fall - if that is too
long - we will talk about that and will come back with a strategy.
Mayor Troxell; thank you to the North College CAG members; Tim Kenney, Dean Hoag, Ron
Lautzenheiser, Grant Sherwood, Don Butler and Christ Sheafor for coming out - your input is critical to
the success.
B. Whitewater Park
Kurt Friesen, Director Park Planning and Development
Matthew Day, Sr. Landscape Architect
Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the item is to request approval of $300,000 funding from the URA for the Whitewater
Park
The Whitewater Park is a planned 12.5 acre park that includes world class whitewater features, park
gathering spaces, river overlooks, fish passage and habitat, stormwater improvements and
restoration of the area. The project will include many items beyond the whitewater features such as
art in public places, road improvements, parking, pedestrian circulation, gathering spaces, wetlands
and restoration, historic preservation and interpretation, removing the Coy diversion structure and
south bank walls, cleaning up industrial properties, and creating a stormwater basin that returns
water to the river. The project also includes a layout the supports future trail alignments, pedestrian
bridge, and an upper terrace gathering space that can be enhanced without the need for FEMA or US
Corps of Engineers permitting.
The Whitewater Park project has funding sources of $9,018,000 and a proposed budget of
$9,467,000. The current project scope has been reduced and the project team is value engineering
project elements, methods and means. The project team has reduced the amount of hardscape
areas, reduced river seating areas, replaced concrete walks with soft paths, phased parking, and
reduced landscape elements to what is required by code. The project team is continuing with value
engineering efforts to close the budget gap. Items the team is working on are reducing dewatering
and water treatment, making utility connections for the south bank at the Powerhouse Campus,
using angular granite versus rounded river rock, repurposing onsite materials, and potentially
adjusting the timing of the improvements to work in the river first to free up dewatering
contingencies and apply those funds to help complete the upland efforts and afford site amenities.
Our project team is also working with the River Commissioner to see if the irrigation/ditch companies
could take water out through the irrigation ditches, bypass the work site, and return the flows to the
river downstream. The approach would reduce the amount of dewatering and water treatment
necessary for the project as well as reduce risk associated with in-stream work.
The project team is also working to see if water removed from the site could be diverted to the
sanitary sewer and not require the costly water treatment system associated with the State
11
dewatering permit. And finally, we continue to seek opportunities to repurpose on-site materials,
reduce hauling and handling and divert any materials from the landfill.
The URA funds are very important to the project and without the additional funds to help bridge the
budget gap, the project will need to eliminate the bridge foundations, redesign a smaller wall at the
south bank overlook plaza, and redesign Vine drive to eliminate parallel parking.
The Whitewater Park will be a recreational asset for the area, generating interest and activity.
Additionally, the project:
• Improves Vine Drive by adding 19 parallel parking spaces, a continuous bike lane, curb and
gutter, and a formalized the right of way strip with street trees, irrigation and turf grass
• Provides improved stormwater conveyance by removing the Coy diversion structure,
lowering the river, and terracing the banks to allow places for people and habitat
• Creates a new stormwater basin to return storm flows to the river
• Results in flood map revision by significantly reducing the Poudre River floodway, opening
significant area to development
• Creates fish passage and river habitat that has not existed since the original diversion
structure was constructed in the late 1800’s
• Enhances habitat diversity through native plantings that support avian species
• Cleanup of the area; the project is removing degraded buildings, obsolete concrete structures
and walls, and pruning and removing hazardous trees that have been neglected for a long time
• Creates historic interpretation of the site including the Coy Diversion and headgate, the Hersh
Quonset, the Union Pacific and BNSF railway bridges, and the Grotto
• Future alignment of the Poudre Trail will cross the river at the Whitewater Park and connect
under the BNSF bridge, through Gustav Swanson Natural Area and replace the at-grade
crossing at Linden with a grade separated crossing under the Linden bridge
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the URA Finance Committee support the Whitewater Park Project funding request for
$300,000?
2. Does the URA Finance Committee recommend this request be brought forward to the URA
Board for consideration?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City initiated and funded the master plan for the Poudre River Downtown Project during the
2013/2104 BFO process. The project included a comprehensive planning process for the Poudre River
from Shields street to Mulberry. The master plan was approved by City Council in fall 2014
(Resolution 2014-093).
The Master Plan identified the area between the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railroad as the initial priority for City investment, this area is now the Whitewater Park. The
Whitewater Park project area includes College Avenue, the old Coy irrigation diversion structure and
12
headgate, the CSU Powerhouse Campus, Gustav Swanson Natural Area, properties along Vine Drive,
and 2 railroads.
The Whitewater Park project makes improvements to the river system and surrounding areas by
addressing the Poudre River Downtown Master Plan’s core objectives. These objectives are:
Flood Mitigation
• Improve public safety and protect properties from damaging floods
• Reduce or eliminate 100-year flood overtopping of College Avenue
• Reduce or eliminate the 100-year flow split along Vine Drive
• Reconnect the river to its floodplain while maximizing the beneficial environmental
and recreational uses of the river corridor
Discussion / Next Steps:
Seeking $300K of URA funding which would fund the Vine Drive Street improvements and 19 spaces for
parallel parking, stormwater improvements and ROW landscape enhancements.
Patrick Rowe; URA has assessed this project as a desirable amenity for businesses and residents in this
area and will help to activate this area.
Kurt Friesen; we met with CAG earlier today and we would like to go in front of the full URA Board on
Feb. 6th
for a full recommendation.
Mayor Troxell; Lemay bypass - Vine takes on a new role - you have it sized pretty robustly - grade
separated bike ways – is it still an arterial in that configuration?
13
Jeff Mihelich; we have talked about this - Vine becomes a local street - enhance - downgraded - we
want more of the regional traffic -
Mayor Troxell; Is this part of the Innovation district? Yes
There is the Innosphere - some storage lockers - access to Redwood and the north - Linden and beyond
that - I don’t have a vision of Vine -
Josh Birks; Downtown Plan which was recently adopted - this was a character area identified -
runs from Redwood and Vine west across College and picks up the Discovery Museum –(rectangle) that
stretch of land - Vine happens to be the southern - stretch between College and Jerome
which is currently impacted significantly by the flood plain and flood way - this project opens that up
and allows us to start delivering more on that vision. There are two more projects underway to try to
build off the Innovation District thinking; Innosphere major facility expansion using land that they own.
A second project that has just started and is in the planning process – in the area of the truck sales
center at the NW corner of Jerome and Vine - 80K square foot building that would be complementary -
building off of Innosphere and the Power House - south of the river - certainly consistent with the
vision.
Mayor Troxell; just as we have the Jefferson Street improvements (College to Mulberry) a sense of
place that helps to identify connectivity across Jefferson into the River District and Old Town to maybe
think about this segment - this area to have its own development area - this is very purposeful for river
access – integration areas - the innovation areas. How do we put that thumb print on this and create
a unique experience?
Josh Birks; The Master Street Plan does call for the stretch between College and Redwood to remain a
two-lane arterial. The Downtown Plan occurred since the last Master Street Plan.
Mayor Troxell; In the Downtown Plan as we create these districts, part of that should be how do we
create unique identities and the streets are a big part of that as well.
Jeff Mihelich; Lincoln Ave. - when we do this section of Vine we will be very intentional to make sure
the design and pedestrian connections celebrate the district.
Ross Cunniff; what effect does narrowing the flood plain here have? Can we have a technical answer
before the next discussion? We do not want to increase the flood plain
Patrick Rowe; this project is adding capacity in the river for those flows and it is channelizing the flood
way but the flood plain is largely unchanged - we will get the technical answer for you.
Ross Cunniff; a 2-lane arterial might not be the right kind of street to be built here - maybe something
with more street calming -
14
Darin Atteberry; with parking / travel lanes and bike lanes - 50 feet of asphalt - arterial streets should
be thoughtfully considered particularly in this Innovation and Play district- not the mention the habitat
and the significance of the river
Josh Birks; given timing - room to talk about what interim might look like - that allows us to move
forward with the focus area
Ross Cunniff; design of this as a 2-lane arterial - encourage traffic to use this arterial to cut 300 feet
from their trip – south - cut through – that goes against the character of the district. We need to be
careful about positioning this as enabling the Whitewater Park because it starts to sound like we are
using URA for recreational purposes - I think the amenities that can stand on their own. I personally
wouldn’t vote for it just as a Whitewater Park.
Mayor Troxell; think about public use and benefits
Josh Birks; tying it to very directly - there is merit to this project in its own.
ACTION ITEM:
Josh Birks; $900K is our cash balance today - there is cash flow that will be coming in the future as well.
I would want to be able to provide a total picture of cash flow as part of the full board presentation.
We could do an interim memo follow up about cash flow - impacts with and without this choice - the
$300K would cut the $629K shortfall in half.
Mayor Troxell; we need the cash flow information before we are ready - that would be useful heading
into a URA Board -
Jeff Mihelich; we will take the questions that were brought up today to the full URA board
Mayor Troxell; great project overall - separation from URA and Whitewater Park - what is the public
benefit for use of TIF?
Ross Cunniff; reasonable to include that this will reduce the cost for water park but not the same.
Josh Birks; we are shooting for March for the new URA Board configuration - we will probably meet 2
more times as the URA Council Finance.
Meeting adjourned at 11:56 am
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Urban Renewal Authority Finance Committee
02/27/18
Noon - 12:30 pm
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, Travis Storin, John Duval, Andres
Gavaldon, Tyler Marr, Josh Birks, Patrick Rowe
Others: Kevin Brinkman, CEO, Brinkman, Jay Hardy, President, Brinkman, Todd Parker,
Director of Development, Brinkman, Edwardo Illanes, Architect, Brinkman,
Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Dale Adamy (Citizen)
Meeting called to order at noon
A. The Drake at Midtown Redevelopment, a new potential URA Project.
Josh Birks, Director, Economic Sustainability
Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Coordinator
Kevin Brinkman (Applicant Representative)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss a proposed development project at the southwest corner of
Drake Road and College Avenue and to explore potential support from the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) in the form of Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
Brinkman, the developer, has requested an opportunity to discuss the proposed project at an early
conceptual stage. The Developer estimates it will incur significant costs between now and the creation
of the new plan area, approximately $2.4 million. As a result, the Developer would appreciate an early
sense of interest by the URA Board in support of the project. No decisions will be made and this
discussion will not obligate the URA board to support the project in the future.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does the proposed project deliver on City goals and objectives for the area?
• Does the URA Finance Committee generally support utilizing TIF to enable the proposed project at
this location?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2011, the URA created the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (Midtown Plan Area) encompassing
most of the South College Avenue commercial corridor from Prospect Road to Harmony Road.
2
Subsequently, the URA reduced the overall size of the Midtown Plan Area due to changes in the State
statutes. However, URA staff continues to view the property adjacent to the intersection of Drake Road
and College Avenue as supporting potential revitalization and redevelopment meriting TIF investment.
In addition, URA staff believes that the existing conditions present at the time of the Midtown Plan
Area formation in 2011 remain. The area is underutilized and contains neglected and obsolete
buildings, lacks urban/transit friendly development, and is in need of infrastructure investment and
public spaces. Designating the area as a new urban renewal plan area would enable support for infill
projects which could exceed the City standards for density and better support transit oriented mixed-
use development. In addition, URA staff envisions recommending TIF investment to support
intersection improvements, public spaces, enhanced landscaping and building façades, a public parking
structure, and other enabling investments consistent with the existing URA statutes and policy.
To utilize TIF, a URA plan area will need to be established, which involves the following steps and
timeline:
Milestone Key Dates
Expand URA Board April 2018
Authorize/Conduct Existing Conditions Survey May – July 2018
Draft New Plan Area June – August 2018
Reach Agreement on TIF Allocation July/August – October 2018
New Plan Area Approval (P&Z/County Review and Public Hearing) July – November 2018
Formally Consider URA Support of Drake at Midtown Development November / December 2018
Project Overview:
The developer, Brinkman, is proposing a mixed-use (hotel, multifamily, and retail) development at the
southwest corner of Drake Road and College Avenue, see Attachment 1 – Location Map. To provide
enhancements in density, public spaces, landscaping, a planned public arcade, and to address other
development conditions, Brinkman is seeking URA support. Brinkman will provide additional details in
their presentation to the Urban Renewal Finance Committee. Please note: the project as discussed here
and shown in the presentation is subject to change through the forthcoming land use planning and
building permit process.
Initial Project Evaluation:
Brinkman has not submitted a formal application for TIF assistance to the URA. Therefore, much of the
analysis staff typically presents to the Urban Renewal Finance Committee is unavailable. However, staff
has evaluated the proposal generally and evaluated the concept of a new urban renewal plan
encompassing the project. Staff believes the project and plan area support the following URA and City
objectives:
• Infill/density projects in keeping with City goals and objectives
o Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill (Policy EH 4.1 and LIV 5.1)
o Target Public Investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2)
o Contribute to Public Amenities (LIV 5.4)
3
o Design for Pedestrian Activity (LIV 31.4)
o Support the Revitalization of Existing Strip Commercial Corridor Developments (LIV 34.3)
o Midtown Plan Concepts
Inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists
High quality sustainable urban form / excellence in design
Buildings address street frontage
Interconnected multi-modal circulation
• Area and transit driven parking needs (public parking structure)
• High quality public spaces
• Roadway/intersection improvements and enhancements
Next Steps:
The following steps will allow the proposed development project to proceed:
• URA staff will work with Brinkman on a formal URA application
• Staff will review the application and provide initial feedback
• A third-party consultant will prepare a financial evaluation assessing financial gap/need
• Staff will continue the process of URA Board expansion and prepare a new Urban Renewal Plan for
consideration by City Council
• Staff will prepare a Redevelopment and Reimbursement agreement for consideration by the URA
Board (upon creation of new plan area)
Josh Birks; This project will trigger our need to expand the URA Board to comply with changes made to
HB15-1348 several years ago and possibly changing the way we look at URA items including early
conceptual stage review. Staff does not have the level of detailed financial information for evaluation
that we normally would because we are very much still in the early stages. The developer is coming
early because this project will involve a significant amount of staff and board time as it moves forward.
Proposed New Plan Area – Runs from the Max BRT line along western border of Kmart building, across
Drake Road ending at the southern border of Thunderbird Road - this was part of the Midtown Plan
area back in 2011 - this area has been determined to have existing conditions that merit infrastructure
issues worthy of URA fund consideration.
Kevin Brinkman; resources to move forward with the project - our soft costs to get through the URA
process is just under $2M so it is a big investment - project is 100% dependent on URA support - we
have been working on this for over a year to get to this point. We have met with staff several times
regarding fulfilling the vision of the Midtown Plan.
Conceptual video shown to URA Council Finance and staff - The Drake at Midtown
4
Edwardo Illanes, Architect; Urban - transit oriented project, creates pedestrian traffic, presents
connectivity east/west, opportunity to create spaces in between buildings, diverse usage - College and
Drake frontage retail – good proximity to CSU, plan to implement significant landscaping throughout
the site especially in park-like area referred to as, The Gardens.
Kevin Brinkman;
Ground level is very mixed use oriented - inviting
New Marriott 110 key property on the corner - iconic building
Using the Max BRT stations - TOD project
200 Residential units
20K sq ft. retail - split between on College and on Drake
URA participation on eligible costs is imperative - 50% requested for the use of public infrastructure,
public gathering areas, and site preparation
Jay Hardy (President, Brinkman); have always been designed to have a catalytic role – through DDA or
URA, projects have been successful in Fort Collins (Foothills Mall, downtown). Density is what makes
them successful. What are the steps we can take right now through URA and the city’s plans to
continue to move this forward? One of the unique opportunities in this area would be to add another
bookend hotel to the CSU area Hilton hotel on one end and Marriott hotel on the other end.
The catalytic effect that these projects have is when there is money left in the bucket at the end.
The allowable uses through URA solution would be in the $7-8M range dependent on final design
Allowable use would be 50% - leaves money in the bucket to use for the Kmart project.
Most projects that are going through the planning process now are single use projects - this project is
an entire city block – in the center of our city - horizontal mixed use provides great gathering areas -
space between buildings will allow for great connectivity in the center of our city.
Josh Birks; the north - south road would be a private road - would have public access for ride share
access to Uber / Lyft – will include fire access - Public access - no private police services
Ross Cunniff; What are the eligible costs? Parking garage, sidewalks, medians, parkways - key question
is what are eligible costs and if 50% becomes a cap on how much we can reimburse. Ok with this
project coming forward. The proposed parking structure would be a benefit to the parking plan for
downtown. It encourages people to park here and utilize the Max BRT, in place of parking downtown.
Parking structure analysis was done – extra cost was $6-7M - 100% TIF amount
The thought is that the parking garage would go on the Kings Sooper side because of its optimal
orientation to the Max BRT stop, near Kmart.
Josh Birks; we have an on-call relationship with a company that does parking design and also looks at
the structural integrity of parking garages– we asked them to do some work on what we could deliver
on the easement as it exists today – not sure if our easement would allow us to build something.
5
Our preliminary work told us where and what dimensions – next step being is to see if we can build this
with the easement.
We will try to get additional space to optimize the efficiency of the structure and provide a very
preliminary estimate of total dollars we need to generate. The difference in this plan area is
articulating public improvements - dollars that don’t go into the project themselves and aren’t TIF - we
have identified parking structure and continuing to make improvements to the Drake and College
intersection.
I think what you and the board will see different this time will be a numeration of tasks - a
prioritization - not a number we would want you to hold us to but a working number that we think
might be the total investment that could be needed to achieve those improvements.
Ross Cunniff; That information would be very helpful.
Kevin Brinkman; For clarity – would you look at 50% of the TIF amount as being the cap and looking at
the eligible costs?
Ross Cunniff; correct, what are the public amenities, benefits to citizens for using tax dollars.
I think we had talked about doing a deep dive on the mall financials particularly the tax increment –
cycle of property tax information - see if the mall redevelopment has information we can gather– we
hope for it to have and counted on it to have a property tax increment impact - that would be an
interesting analysis.
Josh Birks; To confirm and clarify- You would like to see how the project itself is performing against our
plan to include an estimate of off-site – property tax impacts?
Ross Cunniff; yes, one of the selling points is the overall benefit to all taxing districts – the broader
benefits of redevelopment as we redevelop portions of the City.
Josh Birks; we will follow up – very timely - my general sense is that while the sales tax increments isn’t
performing as we thought it would -the property tax is actually outperforming our estimates.
Mayor Troxell; overall plan area - Kmart and attached building to the north – there are size limitations
on the north end of the project.
Josh Birks; operationalization of what we see as the effect of HB 1348 – because we have to present to
our underlying tax districts - evaluate impacts to plan area - we need to keep our plan areas smaller
and more defined in the future. Resultant of state legislation, what we will be seeing will be a series of
smaller districts that may be stitched together over time into a larger strategy plan - we have a sense
of what we think will happen there – can roughly estimate impacts
Mayor Troxell; What about the Radio Shack building which is vacant right now?
6
Josh Birks; that is in the plan because it is under the same ownership as the Kmart building. The INCA
Mexican restaurant is just outside the plan area.
Mayor Troxell; PRPA transmission lines are on the north side along Drake - Transmission lines / poles –
cross over to substation - any consideration for undergrounding these at least across College?
Josh Birks; we did have some very preliminary and conceptual discussions regarding undergrounding –
I understand that you would have to underground a much bigger section than what this project calls
for - we could take a look at that cost of this improvement as we advance the plan area idea. A lot of
questions wrapped up in that subject. We will push on that as a plan area concept but it was not
contemplated as part of this project.
Mayor Troxell; consideration related to more distribution energy resources and integration - meet
some of our local objectives - looking at some synergies – falls in line with your 15-20 year catalytic -
development and improvement to this corner would be desirable.
Ross Cunniff; Opportunity we missed at the mall - context of what kind of redevelopment
opportunities are there to put them underground? Additional areas that might be redeveloped –
There is a section there that doesn’t have sidewalks. North side of Drake - could become more of a
center if we make this a more pedestrian friendly area.
Darin Atteberry; I will ask our pedestrian folks and see what they are planning.
Mayor Troxell; This project looks exciting and incorporates several City Plan initiatives.
Ross Cunniff; Shows more City Plan initiatives than the mall project - this illustrates what a URA project
should be more like in a municipality.
Was there an intentional exclusion of South College and the max line in the plan area?
What improvements are needed at College and Drake?
Josh Birks; this is a conceptual working plan - as we come up with the actual definition of the plan area
- To what extent do we need to bring in any of the public right of ways? Looking at the Max right of
way on the west side – this just follows private parcel lines- meant to be illustrative but is not precise.
Darin Atteberry; this gives us more opportunity - gateway kinds of things –
Darin Atteberry to Kevin Brinkman - What other developers/ builders in town have invested in Max?
I’m interested to hear your beliefs with the Max project.
Kevin Brinkman; for us it is the differentiator today and in the future – a demand generator – especially
on the marketing/ leasing side when you are competing with other projects.
7
Mayor Troxell; This project is at an intersection with the train and quiet zone - public benefit element
to capitalize on there, connecting sidewalks or adjacent parcels
Great input to have early in the plan area - What might be other priorities?
Darin Atteberry asked Josh to do some work around the sidewalk issues Ross had?
Josh Birks; will do - will copy you and Jeff as well.
Kevin Brinkman; we are designing the sidewalk and plan in such a way that we could grow and
integrate
Open question – we may look at bringing other parcels into project area or leaving them out – facilitate
completing public improvements that are needed on College down to Thunderbird.
Questions to the Finance Committee;
Does the project deliver on City goals and objectives for this area?
Generally yes
Does the URA Finance Committee generally support utilizing TIF to enable the proposed project at this
location?
Generally yes
Mayor Troxell; goals and objectives - looking at various optics – this could be a driver - both ways -
north and south
Ross Cunniff; smaller areas – could be a good thing
Josh Birks; consistent with the strategy we had – we had not intended to utilize tax increments – to
have the flexibility – adjust in relation to HB 1348 - we have to come back in smaller sizes to be able to
do what we need to do from a compliance perspective.
Meeting adjourned at 12:38 pm
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
2/11/19
2pm -3pm
CIC Room – City Hall
URA Committee Attendees: Darin Atteberry, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers, Joe
Wise, Christophe Febvre
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Josh
Birks, Jennifer Baker, Mike Beckstead
Others: Carolynne White, BHFS
Meeting called to order: 2:05pm by Ken Summers
Josh Birks; There are no items at this time under other business. The proposed agenda stands as
presented.
Ken Summer; Motion to accept January 10, 2019 URA Finance Committee Meeting Minutes.
Joe Wise; Seconded. All in favor, motion passed.
A. 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
DISCUSSION/NEXT STEPS
Josh Birks; North College Drainage Improvement District (NCDID) has been doing a lot of work
with the dry creek basin within the North College area. This is the last portion of the basin that is
in need of stormwater improvements. Last year the City had set aside $300,000 for this project,
in the budget that it adopted. The URA needs an IGA with the City of Fort Collins in order to
make these payments to the City. The proposed IGA will create an obligation of this payment.
Time line of this proposal will be for the URA board to consider the IGA, then City Council to
consider. The $300,000 go directly to the engineering department and will supports road design
and right-of-way acquisition.
Ken Summers; Boundaries. On the northern end of the map, what canal is that?
Josh Birks; Larimer/Weld canal runs along the northern boundary. Yellow area is served by a
constructed pond. Purplish-blue area is served by pond that needs to be constructed, no piping is
in place. Green teal will be served by College existing. What needs to be designed is where the
alignments are going to go, sizing and underground utilities. Greeley pipeline goes through
Pinion, we will also need to get underneath Railway. Permit with the railway will take time.
About 900k for this project has been set aside across 2019-20, 300k of that is URA, the rest is
City. Both the City and URA budget have approved these expenditures. We need this agreement
between the two entities to allow us to transfer the funds.
Joe Wise; Is this the final funding?
Josh Birks; This is funding that will take us through design and set us up for a funding request in
the 2021-2022 City Budget cycle. Funds request in 2021-2022 will go towards construction of
the actual project. The IGA before you today get us design, right-of-way acquisition, this does
not include
Ross Cunniff; Relative to $300,000, do we have a breakdown of the tax increment used from
each of the taxing entities used for that?
Josh Birks; This is basically from historic funds. We can get this number based on the
proportional distribution increment that has happened historically. This is basically money that
has accumulated in the special fund.
Ross Conniff; How much revenue came from various special taxing entities? Taxing entities that
have a dedicated purpose in the use fund.
Carolynne White; This is a pre HB15-1348 plan. The money that goes into it is what was agreed
upon at the time. Whatever was agree upon at that time will be the increment.
Josh Birks; This one, because it predates HB15-1348 and all subsequent amendments, at the time
it was formed in 2004, 100% of the increment was presumed. Unless the board amends the
agreement, this doesn’t change. Now that we have a broader board perspective, we can more
collectively decide how the funds are going to be spent, but it was fair to presume that 100% of
the increment will continue to be collected and used for a productive purpose.
Ross Cunniff; This collection is voluntary?
Josh Birks; The URA could change its policy and choose to stop collecting and send it back. The
URA does have some obligations, such as roughly a 10-million-dollar bond obligation. Bonds
pledged cannot be refunded, they must be paid per obligation.
Carolynne White; Except to the extent of Bonds, money collected by the URA may be refunded.
The IGA for this project states revenues go towards the approved Urban Renewal Plan. The IGA
enables URA to give money to the City to ensures that the money spent will go towards the
Board priorities in the plan area.
Ken Summers; HB15-1348 what year was that passed?
Carolynne White; It was passed in 2015 and became effective 2016.
Ken Summer; Really no action on our part. It’s more about the funds that will be allocated per
IGA, once the IGA is executed then the funds will go where they need to go.
Josh Birks; Exactly. It is anticipated this will go on as a consent item at the February 27 URA
Board meeting and then brought to City Council for approval in March- Most likely this will be
March 19, on consent.
Joe Wise; This is not a commitment to further funding within the URA?
Josh Birks; No there is no further commitment to construction funding. Slim to no chance there
will be further commitment to construction funding because of the IGA.
Ken Summers; Would there be an objection if we postponed the consideration of the agenda
prioritization item for the end our meeting and began discussing our last item?
URA Finance Committee; No Objection
B. 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
DISCUSSION/NEXT STEPS
Josh Birks; In terms of an update, we are several meetings into Tax meeting negotiations and the
majority of Project Review Committee (PRC) work has been completed as well.
Overall each of these meetings have been very productive meetings with all of the entities that
we are engaging with. With Larimer County, we optimistic that we will have something in the
near future that we can put before the board in the near future. Please note that the conversations
with Larimer County have included Foothills Gateway and Larimer County Pest Control. For
Pest Control, Larimer County sits as the Board even though it has its own mill levy that is
allocated separately.
Foothills requires Larimer County to act as a conduit for funding. Larimer County takes in 0.34
of a mill, takes the revenue associated with that and gives it over to Foothills. Although they do
have a role or responsibility, as far as I understand it, to the Foothills Gateway Board.
Larimer County has been acting as representative for both Foothills and Pest control district.
In terms of the School District, I think we’ve had really good and productive conversations,
although we have a single item that has become a bit of a concern. It is our understanding that
there will be a conversation about this at the upcoming Board of Education meeting – this may
be postponed for the following Board of Education meeting – towards the end of February.
We are anxious to hear back on these negotiations, as they can have further implications for the
schedule.
Carolynne White; The details of these matters are may be subject to an executive session with
legal discussion. The URA Board is currently asked to consider an executive session regarding
these negotiations at its upcoming URA Board Meeting on February 27.
Josh Birks; In terms of the Library district - Negotiations are on the agenda tonight at 4pm at
their Board meeting and I plan on being there. I am available to respond to Board if need be.
Overall conversations have been very productive.
Conversations with the Health District have been very productive as well. We have primarily
been basing our conversations on the Fiscal Impact Model. We have made an offer and are
waiting on feedback from them. This has been our general approach with all the taxing entities
with the exception of the School District. The School District did not participate in the Fiscal
Impact Model, thus our approach to negotiations has been slightly different with them.
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, we have continued to have minimal
engagement. Their increment is overall not a lot of money and they have been pretty clear they
are not interested in sharing any of the increment. If we want to get them off of this high center,
it is very likely they we will be looking at going into mediation with them. We have started to
look at analyzing their cost of service for the area to give us a better idea of what their impacts
would be and what sort of increment there is to share. We are currently working with Economic
and Planning Systems (EPS) on this to come up with a fair number. To split the increment, you
are likely looking at 5-6,000 annually tops in terms of annual increment.
Regarding the timeline with negotiations, we are not as far along as we had hoped. Initially we
planned on having IGAs, that were more or less agreed upon, for you to look at today. Obviously
with our current state of negotiations, we cannot do this today. We will likely be able to provide
IGAs with allocation amounts in March at our March URA Finance Committee meeting. We are
in the process of scheduling a March URA Finance Committee Meetings. With Larimer County,
we are moving along fine and will likely be able to an IGA before the Larimer County
Commissioners before the URA Board meeting in March. We are hoping to be able to do this
with the Health and Library Districts as well. This keeps us on schedule for Council to approve
the Urban Renewal Plan area on April 16. Our concern is that if we get much later that April 16,
we will have to re-educate a whole board as there will be some turn-over relative to elections. It
is our hope to be able to adopt the plan with folks that have been involved since day 1.
Ken Summers; In terms of Northern Water and plan areas. Does the NCWCD really provide
services to this area?
Carolynne White: NCWCD are not a direct service provider in this area. They collect the money
from a very large area and do a variety of other things with it, such as keeping water in the river,
its more about the conservation of water. They have a very large district that they collect tax
from to fulfill their mission.
Josh Birks; This is another reason the Fiscal Impact Model (FIM) has been hard with the
NCWCD. Their service area stretches over 9 counties and the money is used for water
conservation not direct services.
Carolynne White; This district has been through this process and to her knowledge they have not
ever engaged in negotiations. End result of this, you will have a choice to make, to go to
mediation or to write the agreement without their increment.
Joe White; What has historically happened?
Carolynne White: About half of them they have had their increment funneled back to them the
other half they have been written out of the plan area agreement. In all cases, they have managed
to keep all of the increment as far as she is aware
Public Benefit- sources and uses
B. 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
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
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.
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
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
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
DISCUSSIONS/
Josh Birks; Wanted to bring this item before the finance committee, because one of the things
that has come up in our negotiations and Project Review Committee meetings is a desire to limit
the sharing of increment to a specific set of improvements. This is an effort to promote clarity
and transparency across the taxing entities and City. In conversations with all the taxing entities,
they have been supportive of the idea of a single set of improvements on a single matrix to be set
forth in their IGAs. They do not want a custom set for each entity. It is important for this group
to set forth their priorities on this matrix and the items included for consideration. We are
looking for priorities from PRC committee, tax entities boards and the URA board. We have
asked each of our partners to provide some feedback from their boards as well. Please keep that
in the back of your minds as we move through this presentation.
Josh Birks; Revenue presented is estimate of the total tax increment based on assumed increment
in middle column. Our assumptions correspond to our initial offers with each of the taxing
entities, we are still waiting on feedback with each of these offers. City and County mill are
slightly different than what is on tax records, this is because of a road and bridge mill that is
split. The County collects it, sends 50% of this increment goes back to the City, 50% is retained
by County in this case, the 50% allocated to the City typically translates to increment allocated to
the urban renewal plan area.
Ross Cunniff; It would be helpful to show the road and bridge mill as a separate line item rather
than merging.
Josh Birks; The final column is showing all the increment collected from each entity in a single
year relative to the entities total revenue collected annually. This is one measure of equity of deal
structure as requested by the PRC. With this matrix we are showing how much is collected from
each entity- this matrix is showing roughly 0.1 to 0.2 of a percent in annual contribution from
each of the taxing entities. The City is contributing 0.4 of a percent with sales and property tax
revenue of annual contributions. Tax increment totals are just under 18million in total revenue-
this is very conservative number and conservative assumptions of assessed values over time. All
of these numbers may change with negotiations, but we should be close to actual numbers
coming out of the agreements.
Ross Cunniff; How is City sales tax calculated?
Josh Birks; We take anticipated revenue 2.25% rate generated in plan area, net out existing King
Soopers, we take ½ of the remaining tax.
Joe Wise; What is the theory behind only using the 2.25% rate?
Josh Birks; 2.25% rate is general fund rate. The other rates were approved and dedicated by
voters for specific purposes – these go into special funds.
Joe Wise; What is the difference between this and the tax collected from special districts?
Carolynne White: The difference is each taxing entity has a choice of what they chose to
participate with. We are showing what we anticipate being a likely outcome in terms of
increment. The City wants to contribute this number to the plan.
Ross Cunniff; Is the sales tax increment subject to current HB15-1348 requirements?
Carolynne White: Sales tax is addressed by HB15-1348 and the subsequent amendments.
Ross Cunniff; Historically we’ve had a policy to not use sales tax increment for URA purposes?
Josh Birks; Right, that has been the previous policy. Under the assumptions that are being made
the City is coming in at twice the commitment of tax increment relative to the other districts. The
City is coming in under $11million which is a significant share of the total increment. If the
questions is about if the City is contributing enough? As a staff person I can yes, 55% of total
increment is going to come from the City. The City’s chare of their annual revenue is close to
twice that of the other entities.
Ross Cunniff; What if anything can we learn from mall sales tax estimates that we can apply to
these estimates?
Josh Birks; This is why we are assuming only half of the increment to be pledged for tax shift
allowances. We are seeing a mix between retail and service providers that is very different from
what we have seen historically, this is what we are seeing in the mall. In the mall we are seeing
about 30% of space toward service area that generate minimal sales tax. Service tax generations
are very different than retail sales. Part of the reason we assumed 50% is to account for this type
of shifting.
Ken Summers; What if voters approve changes to sales tax rate structure, so that will go to
2.85%?
Josh Birks; There are two ways we can write this into the Co-operation agreement. We can write
is as revenue generated by a given rate (such as 2.25%), you get there with the conversations that
we’ve been having with PSD. The other way is based on the general fund rate, whatever this rate
changes to is what will be shared. Right now, we have assumed 2.25% rate is a good assumption,
we need to address what the URA wants to do if the base City sales tax rate changes- for this
conversation you need to look at it as city council member.
Carolynne White; It is fair to say that terms of co-op agreement are subject to negotiation with
all of the revenue streams including those of the City.
Josh Birks; The point here is that we are trying to understand the amount of revenue that we have
to correct blight and encourage private investment. If you look at Table 2 in your packet it is
explained in columns. Explained the columns and significance of the highlighted cells- these
numbers are still in draft form. We have a good sense of all of the items to be included, but not
total costs.
Parking (additional opportunities) has significant area benefit. Affordable housing belongs to
Portico financial gap and delivers in broader community benefit. Some entities may request that
affordable housing be included in the plan consideration. There are things that we could do in
terms of approving improvements of the area that are beyond what is required in the plan area,
however we are already at $28million dollars in improvements. This is why as staff, we see
looking at the sources and uses of the plan area as very important.
One way of thinking of this, if we do better on revenue side then we can do more of matrix. Staff
recommends we create certainty by ending the bonds at payout and restricting improvements to
matrix. This is why, in our mind, it is important to prioritize your sources and uses.
Ross Cunniff; Do these plans meet Development and Design Code? Where is CSU with the $11
million parking structure?
Josh Birks; No, but we have time to consider partnership. Staff understands that you want this
funded equally in the reasonable and foreseeable future. At this time, we don’t know if it will be
on the final recommendation. Staff has heard it loud and clear that a parking structure should be
funded equitably by the users.
Joe Wise; Fundamental premise, is that the money serves the But For, in this case there is high
probably that the revenue produced with this plan will be built in the reasonably near future.
Without the URA-Seems like there is very little truly needed increment to offset true blight.
Seems like more of a burden to special districts than a benefit, they are being asked to give up
revenue that would have come from normal growth. Most of the improvements are very
expensive, but are they really curing blight? I think these improvements are wonderful things,
but is the URA the right funding mechanism for these? Because I don’t see revenue that truly
needs the URA to survive, I don’t see a true reason to contribute a lot of URA funds. I think the
King Soopers development is the catalyst. I think we should strip URP down to a minimal list
thing that meet the BUT For definition.
Josh Birks; One of the primarily blight condition found is unsafe/unsanitary conditions. There is
a lack of good and safe pedestrian and traffic access in this area. URA investment in this area are
critical for this improvement to happen. Staff feels that these are expenditures that we can tie to
blight survey.
Joe Wise; Pedestrian and Transportation improvements, do they truly fall in the But For? Are
these really the key for development in this area?
Josh Birks; Yes; there is a gap in these areas. The blight conditions themselves will likely end up
on the Capital Improvements plan and be remedied but this avenue will be several years in the
future, likely decades. We do not believe that not doing a URP will bring the same result or in
the same timeline.
Carolynne White; In the But For analysis, timeline is in the analysis of the “But For” that is what
staff has been under the direction for. Thus far, the URP conclusion in relation to the timeline
has been supported. This does not mean that development will not occur, it is that development
without this investment will not produce the same results.
Joe Wise; We haven’t seen a ‘But For’, so how do we really know? It’s makes it very difficult to
evaluate.
Josh Birks; These have been sent to your staff. We can send the ‘But For’ analysis out with the
Board.
Christophe Febvre; The first two columns, are these more of a must-have and a want?
Josh Birks; The first column is a must. The second column is really more of a complete
resolution of the condition-i.e. it’s completing the whole intersection, not just half of it ( the
portion directly in front of the project) or improving all the cross walks at one time. The land use
code looks specifically at the impacts of the project
Christophe Febvre; OK that makes more sense. In terms of investments, the PSD won’t have
incremental dollars there will be no return unless the State backfills it. It is difficult for the PSD
to look at from a community perspective
Joe Wise; We have to look at it evaluatively, is a pedestrian island more important than another
improvement? We have only been around 12years. $3.7 million of our budget is TIF which has
peeled off a large amount of our revenues. Timnath, is the largest chunk because of TIF we have
no revenue there. We have given up 1/3 of our annual revenue to TIF in 12 years with very little
return. We are concerned that we won’t be able to support good services because of all the TIF
areas. We need to be able to provide good library and health services. I’m advocating that TIF is
not a good choice for us.
Ross Cunniff; Sympathetic to that argument. We should only be looking at things that wouldn’t
have happened otherwise in any form. I think the URa Board should restrict itself to what
additional tax revenue will come in because a particular project was built. To that end, to
prioritize, first column shouldn’t be included in TIF, developer will pay those anyway. We need
to look at what is fulfilled in development and land use code. My concern is that we will create
an entitlement to a developer if we continue to fulfill these things for them. The $11 million
parking garage should be prioritized next to last, most of the parking for MAX is for CSU
benefit. We need to figure out what the equitable split between users such as CSU, PSD and City
would be. We need to look at things that really are extraordinary blight-don’t think underpass is.
There really are some sidewalk issues that truly are blight. Going through will get us below $17
million give us more room in negotiations.
Joe Wise; I agree. We need to look at what is good for the community and associated benefit.
Ross Cunniff; Look at it from smaller improvements, such as bus stop improvements. This
method will give us a much smaller increment ask.
Josh Birks; To better explain the why there is a developer column- these are costs that are
contributing to the financial gap that they developer have. Pro Forma shows us the Gap, staff has
filled this gap with public benefits. The entire column will be funded by the project, a portion of
this will be funded by the URA. URA will have very specific criteria for this.
Ross Cunniff; If you can prove to me that some of these benefits cannot happen at all without
gap funding then I would be inclined to change my opinion.
Carolynne White- Development could develop here but likely will not be what you want to
encourage here. A developer could come in here that could meet code, but it won’t have the
amenities that the Board and City have said that they want. The ‘But For’ answers this, the
development with the land use goals are not feasible without additional funding for any
developer.
Joe Wise; Important to the City. The City has priorities and so does the URA, this is a different
URA Board now. I understand city council holds the majority votes on the URA Board and that
City Council ultimately makes the decision but what the City priorities are might have been
different then special districts. It would be a different outcome if the special districts were
considered in this priority during their formation.
Josh Birks; The City is attempting to provide services to meet its constituency. When we say the
City’s desire when we are really trying to represent what’s best for the community-same group,
different lens for each tax entity. We have done everything that we can to offset conditions for
each entity. Then it’s a conversation on how we go about fulfilling the plan area in the most
transparent way to deliver on city objectives.
Ross Cunniff; Minimum bar for the City is Land/Building code. Increment should only be
considered for improvements that go beyond the minimum and fulfill all said criteria.
Josh Birks; Requirements of each project change and create impacts relative to project; these
usages are linked. What is required is fundamentally related to what is proposed. The question is
how much longer the current land owner will operate as such until the use changes thereby
changing the impact.
Joe Wise; I take your point. Regardless of area, its not hard for staff to come up with costs for
things that you really like to see done. Much of this comes from improvements that you are
planning on doing anyway and this makes sense. The question is should we have a more
restrictive list on what TIF can be used for? So that this would either limit what is funded and/or
the length of the TIF area. I don’t think it’s reasonable to charge entities with City improvement
responsibility.
Carolynne White; Limitations on what you collect and what you spend it on. Right now, this is
determined with tax negotiations because its an iterative process with the URA and Tax entities-
Going back and forth until there is sufficient agreement/revenue to satisfy the agreement and
execute the project as everyone wants to see it.
Ross Cunniff; We are only going to ask special districts for money on improvements that would
be beneficial to them in their mission. We have some City policies on what will be put in as a
City. If you put our priority conversation from today at the top, I would be surprised if the rest of
the Board changes their mind.
Ken Summers; Getting back to the general project itself. Gap analysis-Can we get this to
committee and Board as a whole? This will help us all understand better. I agreed with CSU
parking partnerships and extends of financial gaps. Is the $2.7million the Gap or total cost?
Josh Birks; It is the same, both the total Financial gap and total cost of all the items. Total gap is
$6.5 million, public improvement fees (PIF) and Metro districts-take care of 1.2 GAP, 2.7million
is left to be funded by increment.
Ken Summers; I think it’s good to keep the timeline of benefit with negotiations. I find myself
concurring with the timeliness of the development and the type of development that is being
projected, these are important for the community as a whole. It’s important for us to look at how
this applies to special districts.
Josh Birks; There is a lot to think about and we will process our dates accordingly. This item will
come before the whole Board later this month. Other business items-City has requested URA to
look at refinancing Prospect South project. We have previously borrowed $5million, to provide
upfront funding for the Summit. We now have revenue stream established in the district to
support this project, so the City has asked us to privatize the loan. Staff is in agreeance. This is a
heads up to the Finance Committee that we will bringing more information regarding this
forward.
Joe Wise; What to you anticipate the interest rate?
Mike Beckstead; If I would guess, I would say 4.5-5%. Wouldn’t be doing this until the back
half of the year. This is not a shift in revenue or stream or shift in practice. When the URA has
not had the money, the City has play banker with the intent of taking loans out to private sector.
This will give the City more money to invest in other avenues.
Darin Atteberry; When I sit at DDA as ex-officio, number one make something happen that,
make it happen quicker, make it happen better. I wanted to share a request for parking numbers,
so we know who is using it and how many cars are using it. An occupancy and demographic
study will give us a better idea of the situation. I pretty sure it’s a result of CSUs parking pricing
policy. We need to keep in mind what the total list of URA projects that the City has participated
in. This is part of us telling our story, it is good to have the facts in front of us. We need to be
reminded as that, we know where the big hits are and don’t want our colleages to see us key
drivers in the big hits, or being irresponsive of that. What percentage of Library TIF impacts is
the City of Fort Collins? What is the current Library TIF being allocated to the City?
Joe Wise; We think the proposed project looks great. The question is, how do you pay for it? We
give a lot based on our 10mill in revenue, we can’t meet our current demands because we don’t
have a large mill and we are being asked to give up something that we think would be ours
anyway. Maybe there are alternatives to TIF?
Darin Atteberry; FCURA need to be mindful of impacts of TIF in other districts that are
impacting our partners.
Carolynn White; 3 points of DDA, I think this board has already adopted those as a policy.
Ross Cunniff; I think the second one needs to be changed. State wide focus on faster is not
necessarily representing the citizens of the state. The timeline one needs to be changed, it does
not reflect, state constituents.
Meeting Adjourned: 2/11. 3:38pm
URBAN RENEWAL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks
Date: March 19, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update – Tax Allocation Agreements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the
"Authority") Finance Committee (the "Committee") 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 allocations of incremental tax revenue
to 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.
Intergovernmental Agreement - Allocations
The Larimer County Tax Increment Financing Study Group (the “TIF Study Group”)
recommended that a Plan Area Review Committee (the “PRC”) be convened to prepare and
review a Fiscal Impact Model (the “FIM”) and Project Evaluation Criteria (the “Evaluation
Criteria”) for any proposed plan. Authority staff first convened the PRC on October 16, 2018.
The PRC continued to meet over the next several months for a total of eight (8) meetings
culminating in a final meeting on February 26, 2019. Authority staff anticipates reconvening the
PRC after the formation of the Plan to debrief the process and sequence of negotiation.
The PRC finalized the FIM and Evaluation Criteria which was presented to the negotiation teams
of each tax entity in January of 2019. These materials along with a matrix of proposed public
improvements has formed the basis for negotiations. In addition, a draft Intergovernmental
Agreement (“IGA”) was circulated to each entity. The draft IGAs were consistent across all
entities except for a few minor differences related to the circumstances of each entity. The
objective of Authority staff is to continue to ensure continuity amongst the IGAs. The IGAs
include several provisions that deal with the allocation of incremental property taxes anticipated
within the proposed Plan. The provisions include:
Increment Duration – Urban renewal law limits the duration that incremental property
tax revenue in a plan may be used to achieve plan objectives to 25 years.
Increment Allocation – The IGAs specify the amount of incremental property tax
revenue that the Authority will transfer to the impacted entity each year to offset financial
impacts of serving the proposed development in the Plan. These numbers generally come
from the FIM.
Increment Cap – Authority staff has agreed to include a dollar cap on incremental
property tax revenue to be collected from each impacted taxing entity. This cap will
account for historic property appreciation. The cap will be limited to 2.0 percent growth
over the 25-year period. If revenue grows faster than this rate then both parties will retain
that growth based on the allocation amount annually; however, at no time will the URA
retain more than the cap amount. Thus higher growth equals faster collection for the
URA.
Improvement Exhibit – Authority staff has agreed to limit the use of incremental
property tax revenue to fund a specific exhibit listing proposed public and private
improvements. The actual cost of these improvements may inflate over time consistent
with the Boulder-Denver Engineering News Record rate of increase. This is a typical
third-party source of construction cost used in the industry for this purpose.
No Precedent – Authority staff has agreed to include a clause that indicating the IGAs
related to the proposed Plan do not set precedent for future IGAs between the entity and
the Authority.
Annual Report – Authority staff has agreed to provide and annual report on the total
incremental revenue collected, the amount retained against the proposed revenue cap, and
the status of constructing the various public improvements listed in the IGA exhibit.
Specific terms of the agreements, as currently reflected in the IGAs are summarized in Table 1
below.
Table 1
Current IGA Assumptions and Inputs
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source
Mills /
Rate
Assumptions
Annual
Increment to
Entity
Annual
Increment to
URA
URA Increment
Revenue CAP
City of Fort Collins / Property Tax 9.797 100% of Increment Committed $ - $ 88,501 $ 2,835,000
City of Fort Collins / General Fund Sales Tax 1 2.25% 50% of Net New Increment Committed $ 316,713 $ 316,713 $ 10,144,000
City of Fort Collins / Dedicated Sales Tax 1.60% No Increment Committed $ 338,393 $ - $ -
$ 655,105 $ 405,214 $ 12,979,000
Larimer County / Property Tax 2 21.653 60% of Increment Committed $ 78,241 $ 117,361 $ 3,759,000
Foothillls Gateway / Property Tax 0.750 No Increment Committed $ 6,775 $ - $ -
Health District / Property Tax 2.167 66% of Increment Committed $ 6,656 $ 12,920 $ 414,000
Library District / Property Tax 3.000 66% of Increment Committed $ 9,214 $ 17,886 $ 573,000
Poudre School District / Property Tax 52.630 20.25 Mills of Increment Committed $ 292,504 $ 182,928 $ 5,859,000
Northern Water / Property Tax 1.000 No Increment Committed $ 9,033 $ - $ -
Larimer County Pest Control District / Property Tax 0.142 No Increment Committed $ 1,283 $ - $ -
$ 403,706 $ 331,095 $ 10,605,000
$ 1,058,811 $ 736,309 $ 23,584,000
1 Excludes Sales at the Existing King Soopers being relocated
2 Excludes 0.7500 Mills dedicated to Foothills Gateway
Subtotal / City of Fort Collins
Subtotal / All Other Entities
Total
Status of Negotiations:
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 several times to discuss the
allocation and the Commissioners have reviewed the proposal. Staff is finalizing terms
with the County and anticipates the IGA will be considered by the Commissioners prior
to the March 28th
Authority Board meeting. (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 five times – starting
in October and most recently on February 26, 2019 – to discuss the terms of an IGA. PSD
staff continue to indicate a single point is at issue before the PSD Board of Education can
review the rest of the terms. The PSD BOE discussed the item at the March 12, 2019
meeting – at this time their positions has not changed.
Poudre River Library District – Authority and Library staff have met to discuss the
terms of an allocation agreement. Authority staff presented the current terms to the Board
on March 11, 2019 to generally favorable response. Drafts of the IGA are being
exchanged and will hopefully be ready for consideration in early April by the Library
Board.
Northern Larimer County Health District – Authority and Health District staff have
met to discuss the terms of an IGA several times. The Health District staff have kept their
Board up-to-date on the discussions. A revised version of the IGA will be presented in
hopes that the Health District Board can consider it at their April 9th
, 2019 meeting.
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
At the time of printing this report, Authority staff continues to plan to present the proposed
College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan to the City Council on April 16, 2019. This is subject to
change based on recent information shared by PSD staff. A detailed update on the schedule will
be provided at the Committee meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
3/14/2019
1
1
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
March 19, 2019
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
Allocation Agreement Update
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
Allocation Agreement Update
Questions for the Committee
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the allocations of
incremental tax revenue to support of the College and Drake Urban
Renewal Plan?
2
1
2
3/14/2019
2
Increment Limitations
3
Duration
Allocation
Revenue
Cap
Specific
Improvements
General Provisions
Increment Limitations:
Duration – Max 25 years
Allocation – Varies
Cap – Based on 2%
growth
Expenses – Specific list;
escalated annually by ENR
Additional Provisions:
No Precedent
Annual Report to Entities
4
3
4
3/14/2019
3
City Allocation Inputs
Includes 2% growth/appreciation – basis of $ cap 5
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source
Mills /
Rate
Assumptions
Annual
Increment to
Entity
Annual
Increment to
URA
URA Increment
Revenue CAP
City of Fort Collins / Property Tax 9.797 100% of Increment Committed $ ‐ $ 88,501 $ 2,835,000
City of Fort Collins / General Fund Sales Tax 1 2.25% 50% of Net New Increment Committed $ 316,713 $ 316,713 $ 10,144,000
City of Fort Collins / Dedicated Sales Tax 1.60% No Increment Committed $ 338,393 $ ‐ $ ‐
$ 655,105 $ 405,214 $ 12,979,000
1 Excludes Sales at the Existing King Soopers being relocated
Subtotal / City of Fort Collins
Other Entity Allocation Inputs
6
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source
Mills /
Rate
Assumptions
Annual
Increment to
Entity
Annual
Increment to
URA
URA Increment
Revenue CAP
Larimer County / Property Tax 2 21.653 60% of Increment Committed $ 78,241 $ 117,361 $ 3,759,000
Foothillls Gateway / Property Tax 0.750 No Increment Committed $ 6,775 $ ‐ $ ‐
Health District / Property Tax 2.167 66% of Increment Committed $ 6,656 $ 12,920 $ 414,000
Library District / Property Tax 3.000 66% of Increment Committed $ 9,214 $ 17,886 $ 573,000
Poudre School District / Property Tax 52.630 20.25 Mills of Increment Committed $ 292,504 $ 182,928 $ 5,859,000
Northern Water / Property Tax 1.000 No Increment Committed $ 9,033 $ ‐ $ ‐
Larimer County Pest Control District / Property Tax 0.142 No Increment Committed $ 1,283 $ ‐ $ ‐
$ 403,706 $ 331,095 $ 10,605,000
2 Excludes 0.7500 Mills dedicated to Foothills Gateway
Subtotal / All Other Entities
Includes 2% growth/appreciation – basis of $ cap
5
6
3/14/2019
4
Combined Allocations
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source
Mills /
Rate
Assumptions
Annual
Increment to
Entity
Annual
Increment to
URA
URA Increment
Revenue CAP
$ 655,105 $ 405,214 $ 12,979,000
Larimer County / Property Tax 2 21.653 60% of Increment Committed $ 78,241 $ 117,361 $ 3,759,000
Foothillls Gateway / Property Tax 0.750 No Increment Committed $ 6,775 $ ‐ $ ‐
Health District / Property Tax 2.167 66% of Increment Committed $ 6,656 $ 12,920 $ 414,000
Library District / Property Tax 3.000 66% of Increment Committed $ 9,214 $ 17,886 $ 573,000
Poudre School District / Property Tax 52.630 20.25 Mills of Increment Committed $ 292,504 $ 182,928 $ 5,859,000
Northern Water / Property Tax 1.000 No Increment Committed $ 9,033 $ ‐ $ ‐
Larimer County Pest Control District / Property Tax 0.142 No Increment Committed $ 1,283 $ ‐ $ ‐
$ 403,706 $ 331,095 $ 10,605,000
$ 1,058,811 $ 736,309 $ 23,584,000
1 Excludes Sales at the Existing King Soopers being relocated
2 Excludes 0.7500 Mills dedicated to Foothills Gateway
Subtotal / City of Fort Collins
Subtotal / All Other Entities
Total
7
Timing Considerations
URA Board will consider allocation agreements before several of the
other taxing entities
URA Board can make its approval contingent on the other taxing
entity approval
Anticipate getting approval from other taxing entities prior to
presenting the Plan to City Council for consideration on April 16th
8
7
8
3/14/2019
5
Key Dates
9
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. 28,
2019
Negotiations
Entities
Approve
Allocations
March
2019
Key Takeaway: continued delay; 120 days ends April 11, 2019
Questions for the Committee
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the allocations of
incremental tax revenue to support of the College and Drake Urban
Renewal Plan?
10
9
10