C4C Meeting 3/18/14
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
Q: As a recent transplant from Oklahoma, how would you compare this opportunity
to some of the other incredible transformative projects that Chapman was a part of
in cities like Tulsa and Oklahoma City? What sort of hopes do you have for our
community as we strive to get C4C done?
A: Andy - Where we are now in Colorado Springs, I see us where Tulsa was five
years ago. We had a similar proposition come up. In Tulsa it was called Vision
20/25. That was passed narrowly, and there were the same type of arguments on
each side, the same type of questions, the same naysayers, and the same proponents.
It is very strikingly similar. Among those projects that Vision 20/25 spurred include
a minor league ballpark that was relocated from a suburban area to downtown in a
warehouse district that was a pretty blighted area, the BOK center (event center)
that hosts numerous concerts, events, NCAA tournaments, and the site of WNBA
team that recently relocated to Tulsa, a new civic center, a creative arts district that
was relocated and designated by the state as a creative district. More organizations
are moving in like art institutions, creating and selling art. It’s an exciting and
fascinating place to be in right now. There are four new hotels in downtown that
were created and spurred on by these developments. I consider Tulsa and Colorado
Springs to be fairly like-sized cities, so I can only hope that these, “If you build it,
they will come” realities will come true for Colorado Springs as well. I feel very
positive in seeing the growth and the development that was in a community that
had all of these features come to fruition that that can be a reality here too.
Q: Mr. Beckett - Can you give us an idea of what’s going to happen at the venue, what
events will be there, and the Sky Sox issue?
A: Doug – Let me start with the Sky Sox and say that at the moment, the Sky Sox are
not part of the go forward plan, and I think they are happy out where they are. They
have a fan base out there, and we really have moved this stadium to being a long
field that can accommodate sports like lacrosse, soccer, and rugby. We aren’t ruling
out baseball. There’s talk that you can have a multi-purpose stadium. It will be able
to be flexible enough to have other sports. We are certainly talking to some NGB’s
and USA Volleyball. The types of things that can be done in an outdoor venue, in
addition to the fact that it’s only 10,000 seats, does give you the ability to do
concerts and things that don’t, you know, the days of doing the big outdoor stadiums
like up at Falcon Stadium, those aren’t the types of events that we would be looking
to go in there. But certainly sporting types events, and not just from the national
governing bodies, but there’s a lot of sporting institutions here in Colorado Springs
that have told us that if we had this sort of venue here that they could do it. Adjacent
to the outdoor stadium would be a 3,000 seat indoor stadium. They would be able to
take the width of six basketball courts for things like wrestling, basketball,
volleyball, and things like that. It could fit into those types of events. The current
location, tentatively, is down in the southwest urban renewal district, adjacent to
where the US Olympic Museum is going to be slated, and there is a promenade that
would connect them. It would be all downtown in the southwest urban renewal
area.
Q: (Interruption from audience member) Why did you fall into 10,000?
A: Well, I think that in the research we were doing, we originally were looking at a
baseball stadium and looking at the AAA ball clubs around the country, it seems like
10,000 is about the right number. That number has stayed consistent with the one
we pivoted.
Q: (Another interruption) What about the location?
A: The current location, tentatively, is down in the southwest urban renewal district,
adjacent to where the US Olympic Museum is going to be slated, and there is a
promenade that would connect them. It would be all downtown in the southwest
urban renewal area.
Q: (Interruption from audience member) Will the traffic be able to handle that?
A: There are plans to build up to a 1,500-car parking garage there. That is part of the
master plan. There certainly are funds that are set aside for infrastructure; to make
sure that there is good flow back-and-forth on that.
Q: What is the soccer effort planning?
A: Nick Ragain (soccer effort) – Ragain Sports, not even a year ago, my father
contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in pursuing a professional
soccer franchise. I was working for myself at the time, and I was kind of curious
about the proposition, so we began pursuing it. Some of the background behind that,
the major league soccer had just created a relationship with a league called USL Pro.
USL Pro was establishing a similar relationship to AAA baseball with major league
baseball was USL Pro to major league soccer. That sounded very intriguing, and the
soccer hierarchy really continuing to establish itself and strengthen itself. We
pursued it. Before, I worked for a sports lighting manufacturer for a number of years
and was very familiar with the state of Colorado. The first thing that we did, and the
first thing I thought about, was where would we put this thing. We’re from Colorado,
the Golden area, our offices will be down here April 1st this year. Right off the bat, I
knew that there were only a couple places we could go. One of the projects that I had
worked on was in Glendale, A rare venue for rugby and soccer. That particular area
of Glendale labeled itself as Rugby Town USA, and that was really their goal and
what they were striving to do. Other than that, up North we could have played at a
college field at UNC. They had an old football field that they converted into a soccer
field that would have fit our field size. Most people don’t realize that our full size
soccer field is larger than a football field. It’s even larger than the majority of high
school fields that have tracks around them. It needs to be larger than that. We
couldn’t play, even if we want to play, at Air Force Academy, or Hughes Stadium, or
some of those other places. Those weren’t even options, those weren’t even on the
table. We found out that major league soccer has a veto on our application process,
and know and found out that Denver Metro was nixed, so we had to look for other
opportunities. We knew we were going to be north (Fort Collins, Greeley) or down
south, and it was fortuitous, right place right time. It was a great introduction. I’m
meeting the parks department at Sand Creek Stadium, looking at that potential
venue, and we are going to be making improvements out there. Actually, we have
plans to spend money to bring that facility up where it needs to be so that we can
host events and we can even make this franchise work. When we got here, the parks
department was telling us about the vision for Colorado Springs. It became very
clear that this was the place to be. Northern Colorado was ready to spend, right out
of the gate, millions of dollars to improvements without even a long-term contract
with us. That’s how things are going up there. But we are really excited to be in
Colorado Springs.
Q: What are you doing about the toxicity that has been left behind and below at 25
Cimino, right in the heart of the C4C projects?
A: Commissioner – It is not in the heart of the C4C projects. It isn’t really even
envisioned in the footprint. However, should it ever become part of the footprint,
the best thing that can happen to a contaminated site is for somebody to want to use
it because that’s when it’s going to be cleaned up. When someone has a better and
higher use for it, that’s when they’re going to spend the money. The EPA will ensure
that it’s cleaned up; it is a known contaminated site. This is not flying under
anybody’s radar. Everybody is aware of it, including the EPA and other authorities.
When it’s time for that site to be cleaned up and ready to be used it will be done to
EPA standards. Chain of custody says anybody that’s owned it is on the hook. Now,
probably not great news for those of you that live in Colorado Springs because
Colorado Springs and the utilities happen to own it, so they will be a part of the
cleanup effort. Nobody gets off the hook free. The best thing that can happen to that
site is for somebody to decide they want to use it, be it C4C or one of the private
entities. The site is somewhere to the northwest, west of the railroad tracks, but
north of Colorado Avenue. It’s not in the footprint, but it is close. I could see there
being a better and higher use for it than what’s there currently if this all comes to
fruition like we expect it to.
Q: Mr. Murray – Can you please give us the projected time of your 5,000-seat
stadium that UCCS is building?
A: Mr. Bennett – We don’t have a suggested timeframe at this point because we
haven’t had an identified funding source. We have about 250 million of construction
projects in front of it, not counting the C4C project. It’s probably at least 5-7 years
out, if that. It’s on our master plan to be built in the next 15-20 years, but there isn’t
a current plan for it right now.
Q: Mr. Murray – Can you give us an example of a successful soccer/baseball stadium
in the United States?
A: Mr. Price – I believe the last one that I took a look at was in Columbus, OH. I can’t
tell you the name of the stadium off the top of my head, but the one in Columbus is
one that is worth looking at.
Q: Mr. Murray - Is it the intent of the city not to collect or bond any TIF for five years
for the stadium? (In regards to state funding)
A: Mr. Cope – The way the RTA funding works is that the state is calculating the base
in the TIF zone right now, as we speak. Once the sales tax increment reaches the
level that there would be a rebate payable back to the city of Colorado Springs, it
would be collected. Now it would come back to the Colorado Springs Urban Renewal
authority that would hold the funding, and then no funding would be released on
any project until the project was finalized and approved and ready to go forward.
Those will be on different timeframes.
Q: Mr. Murray – Can you please resolve the news conference last night between the
problems with the resolution and the five city council members who are now
demanding a vote for TIF funding?
A: Mr. Cope – They mayor certainly looks forward to working collaboratively with
both the El Paso County and the City Council. While there might be some differences
in some of the technicalities, the mayor has always intended to work collaboratively
and get these details worked out.
Q: C4C, as I understand, takes annual sales tax receipts and designated area above
1.5% previous year receipts, with this amount subject to a percentage of state,
county, and city sales tax being rebated and made available for debt service under
TIF rules. However, some economics calculates the historical average annual
increase in sales tax revenue is 5%. If this is true, projected rebate amount is being
artificially increased by manipulation of the calculation rather than growth due to
economic effect of C4C projects.
A: Commissioner Bob – It is important to understand that the entire exercise of the
Regional Tourism Act was to zone in on an equation that would identify only net
new state sales tax revenue paid by out-of-state visitors. As part of that equation
and in protection of the state of Colorado, the state wants to continue to receive all
of the sales tax they’re receiving today. They also want to receive the natural growth
of that sales tax, and that’s the 1%. There were three layers of economists that
worked on the application that came up with the estimate of 1.5%. Also, the EPS
report that was hired by the state of Colorado to take a look at this, while they did
have other questions with the analysis, they never questioned the 1.5% estimate.
But keep in mind that you have to take a look at what’s happened over history, you
have to look at what’s happened with recessionary periods where we’ve had actual
declines. We are looking at 30 years in the future, and what’s going to be the impact
of e marketing and Internet retailing. There’s a lot of uncertainty there, but the
entire focus was to come up with the best and most accurate estimate for what that
inflation rate or growth rate would be. Now, in the event that it’s not 100% accurate
and it isn’t 5%, that means that that 87% of the net revenue that’s going to continue
to flow to the state will grow faster than 1.5%, but at the same time, the projections
for the four C4C venues then could very likely grow by more than what they were
projected to grow, so it could all balance out. No one knows what the exact math is
going to be in the end, but I think it’s important to know that extreme efforts were
made to identify and segregate only that net new state sales tax revenue for serving
the base and inflation for the state of Colorado. In the typical TIF scenario, you
establish a base, you then designate either all or a portion of the sales tax revenue,
and it all gets swept into the project. In this case, this is much more precise and a lot
more work went into it to prevent what the question was aiming at.
A: On the same topic, our county financing budget officer tells us that the county
growth has probably been more than 1.5% and in our third party analysis we used
the most accurate information they could find. However, this 1.5% they’re talking
about is state money. The Pikes Peak region is a donor region; El Paso County is a
donor county. We give more to the state than they give back to us. So, if we’re off on
state money on this direction, that means we get to keep more of the state money.
It’s not money that was going to go to the county general fund or the city general
fund; it was money that was going to go to Denver. So, we get to keep more if the
numbers are what we said, 1.5%, and real growth is 5%, that means we get to keep
more, and we have less leakage leaving the county. I’m not sure I see the downside
there.
Q: Mr. Hawk – Why do we want to build a sports stadium or multi event facility
when the World Arena is losing 2.5 million dollars a year? Most of our venues are
losing money and underutilized. We have a perfectly good city auditorium that, with
some additional modernization, could handle just about any event. Why would we
put all of our available money into this project when we have so many infrastructure
projects across the whole city that are dying for help (bridges, roads, etc.)?
A: Nicola Sapp, County Budget Officer – I’m not sure where you got your
information from, but that is not accurate. The World Arena is not losing $2.5
million a year. The World Arena is very much in the black in profits. I can’t give you
the exact numbers, but I want to say it’s somewhere around the half a million dollar
range. That’s very discretionary as far as to details.
A: This is about net new revenue into the area, attracting people from out of state.
From the county’s perspective, we get to attract people not only from out of state,
but also from other areas from within the state. If we can get people from Denver to
come down to a museum, that’s really great for us. The state doesn’t care so much
about that, they want people crossing the Colorado border. All that said, this is about
net new revenue that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the venues existing. In other
words, nobody is going to spend money at an Olympic museum if there is no
Olympic museum here. The idea is that you have the net new revenue, and as
described, you’ve got a base that we all calculate, we all forecast, we all budget on,
and then you’ve got the growth of 1.5%, and then there’s an amount above that
that’s calculated based on the projections for the net new sales tax that people will
be spending. It is 13% of that increment that the state has dedicated to the
investment in these projects. So, the 87% that remains is new money that flows into
the state’s general fund. Likewise, the formula would be applied, potentially, to the
county and to the city. To look at that net new sales tax above the base and above
the growth, look at that increment, take 13%, invest into the projects, and the
additional 87% that’s generated is new revenue flowing into the general funds of the
city and the county. That revenue is general fund revenue for storm water, roads,
bridges, and infrastructure, revenue that would otherwise not exist. That’s the plan,
that’s the model. Now, it’s that model that we want to look at with the third party
review. There’s no increase in the sales tax rate, jus increase in the activity that
produces more sales tax revenue. We are looking for that third party independent
review to make sure the projections are right and on target. When you’re looking at
the increment and hearing the discussions about the financing, do not forget and do
not undersell the newly generated revenue, that 87% on the other side. That’s all
new money coming into the general fund for the infrastructure support. It is not
taking anything away from what we currently do.
Q: Kevin Killbane – Do we have to have all projects go through or can we do “a la
carte?” If so, can we use the money for the stadium to support the other new venues
to actually have a world class city to back those new world class venues and help
with the infrastructure, but still be able to get those other three venues? Maybe not
the stadium because it’s very contentious, but use that money, or would that money
not be available to do infrastructure?
A: Keith King – As City Council president we’ve looked at this issue several times,
and the original application that went forward was coupling all the projects
together. I think there has been a decoupler put into the resolution that came
forward that we just saw on Friday. It says the projects can be decoupled, but they
have to stick within the funding formula that is necessary for what the funding is
done as far as the process goes forward as the state TIF that comes down from the
state. I think there is some flexibility that is going forward, we’ll see how the
resolution goes forward. I will quickly mention that when I read the resolution, as a
council member and co chair of the council, I was very concerned about the
structure of the resolution, and I had a discussion with Dennis about that structure
and wanted to find a better balance and find a more appropriate way of doing that
structure and so we gave some concerns that we had to the mayor. We had lunch
with him yesterday and talked about some of those concerns, and we also had a
press conference yesterday where we talked about those concerns. I hope those will
be worked out. I think the current resolution, as it stands, does not have enough
transparency. As it goes forward, it needs to have a better balance as it is structured
as to how we do the different projects. I think the issue that is given right now in the
resolution is that it gives an opportunity for the applicant, which is the mayor, to
change the percentages. If he wants to try to change those percentages as it goes
forward, and so the stadium will probably take maybe a year or two to get ready to
go forward and so we’ll have to see how that all plays out and how the formula will
work. There is some concern about how the formulas can be reallocated if they do
not get done. And there is some concern about how that would play out and who
would have the authority to do that in the resolution. Hopefully we will get some of
those details worked out as we go forward.
Q: What can we do to be sure messaging of C4C out in the community is consistent
and accurate? Are there committees of the various sectors in our community that
one can enlist or engage with to advocate on behalf of the projects?
A: Laura Neumann – I find that there is a significant volume of public meetings that
are titled “City for Champions” and I think it’s important that constituents get to
have a voice in all the different areas of our community and the different times of
day and so forth. However, if the core strategy team or project leads are not present
to give the information specifically at that particular time, the message may become
convoluted. I think there is a forum for citizens to give feedback and their voices are
heard, but then there’s a forum for the experts to share the most current messaging,
and I think it’s meetings like this. When I was first speaking about my volunteering
and we were talking about communications, I thought maybe there could be a logo
or a bug of some sort on any sort of marketing material that says the core group will
be present to answer your questions that are experts in those particular projects. As
it relates to volunteering, as I understand it there are no specific committees yet,
until the regional advisory board is established. There’s going to be an overall
regional advisory board and very project specific boards. Once those are established
and announced publicly, committees will be formed, and there will be a calling to
the public to be able to contribute and come forward as citizen volunteers.
Q: Don – Where did you come up with the conclusion that you shouldn’t deal with a
toxic site until development occurs?
A: Mr. Hisey – You reached the wrong conclusion, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I
would love to have that toxic site cleaned up immediately, along with a few others
throughout the region that I’m aware of. What I’m saying is usually it doesn’t
happen until somebody has a use for the site because nobody is willing to put the
money into it until they’re ready to do something with the property. I will never
advocate for leaving contamination alone. It all needs to be cleaned up and the
sooner the better.
Q: Don – Why couldn’t we just put in some monitoring wells? They’re not terribly
expensive, and put them in the surrounding area so we could find out how much the
water and soil is contaminated so that instead of waiting around for several years,
we could actually stop it sooner than later. Where can I get involved in getting
monitoring wells put in around that area?
A: That’s not something that I am in charge of, but I am completely with you in
getting things cleaned up as soon as possible. If that’s a step we can participate in I’ll
be on board with it.
Q: Glenn Carlson – Has there been any fear of the USOC leaving when that contract is
up, or any commitment from them, that when we make this big investment, they’re
also going to make an investment to stay with us in the city? Is there any intention
to make the visitors center more than a visitor’s center, but really work with the
local colleges and students and make it a science and technology hub?
A: Carlos – One of our goals for the visitor’s center is to change the whole nature of
the displays that will be in the center, to highlight a great deal of how science and
technology helps the US Air Force performance missions for the nation and how big
of a component science and technology is just in the occasion of our cadets. We’re
talking about interactive displays and information that will highlight those two
elements.
A: I do know that when a contract was signed it was a 25-year contract, and they are
maybe 5-6 years into that contract. I’ve had discussions with people at the USOC
about this topic, and they’re very upbeat, very positive about the relationship that
exists with the city of Colorado Springs within the region here of El Paso County.
One of the things that we certainly have going for us that we won’t always have
going for us is that the head of the USOC is a Colorado Springs native, and Scott
Blackmun, this is his home, he loves it here. I would never want to put myself in a
position of speaking for the USOC, but we have asked the question. One of the things
that I’ve heard brought up when talked about the museum itself is that somebody,
somewhere is going to build an Olympic museum, and the idea of having it here in
Colorado Springs, it makes sense for it to be here. We think that despite the fact that
you will hear people talk about that there are other Olympic museums in Atlanta,
Lake Placid, and Salt Lake City, they commemorate the games that were held in
those destinations, but this is something for Team USA to be able to come and
celebrate. In a couple of weeks, Colorado Springs is going to be announcing that
they have a new sister city in Greece, Olympia, the home of the Olympic games. The
idea of tying in the old with the new and the past with the future is something we
think will speak volumes for why the USOC calls us their home now and well into the
future.
Q: With the reduction of the Army of 140,000 troops bract in 2015 25,000 Air Force
personnel being reduced, have any of you factored this scenario into your numbers
(population and sales tax drops)?
A: (input from everyone) - Yes, the county has. Our third party study will factor that
in. Speaking for the Academy, we get plenty of numbers from the Department of
Defense through headquarters Air Force, and as part of the analysis I provided for
the superintendent we will talk about how that impacts the project. This is about
attracting people to come from out of state, so I don’t have a yes or no simple
answer for you. I will tell you that the analysis that was done was about trying to
attract people to come to Colorado, regardless of the number of people who live
here right now. Our numbers are about attracting people to the state of Colorado.
Our numbers are about jobs, so our plan is to provide opportunities for those people
when they’re displaced, so maybe they can stay in this community and be
productive. Our numbers are about creating a business friendly culture, a culture of
innovation and entrepreneurship. The research that was done was based on
attracting net new visitors to the state. One thing that won’t happen with tourism
jobs, they will not be outsourced. The people that get hired will work in the venues
and attractions that are built here, and one of the beauties of our industry happens
to be the third largest employer with over 14,000 jobs in our region. We don’t think
this applies to our project.