HIGHLANDS RANCH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT STUDY SESSION ADDENDA

Transcription

1 HIGHLANDS RANCH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT STUDY SESSION ADDENDA September 21, 2015 Addendum documents can also be viewed at or High Line Canal Conservancy West Big Dry Cresthill to C470 Update on Ice Arena memo

2 High Line Canal Conservancy PRESERVE PROTECT ENHANCE Protection and Planning for a Regional Gem August 2015

3 The High Line Canal History The 71-mile High Line Canal was a commercial idea to bring water to settlers and farmers near the confluence of the South Platte and Cherry Creek following a gold rush in : Canal construction completed 1924: HLC purchased by Denver Water 1970: Restrictions lifted to allow recreational uses

4 Our High Line As one of the longest continuous urban trails in the country, it is 71 miles long and 100 feet wide (over 950 acres).

5 Over 350,000 residents reside within one mile of the Canal. Counts show trail users have exceeded 500,000 people annually.

6 Beginning at Waterton Canyon and ending in Green Valley Ranch, the Canal twists through the most highly-populated areas of the state while crossing through diverse communities.

7 The Realities and Challenge:! Approximately 80% of HLC water seeps into the ground or evaporates prior to reaching a paying water customer.

8 What does a dry and ignored High Line Canal look like?! Denver Water rarely runs water to the final 22 miles

9 Denver Water owns the canal and the 100 foot easement & is in the water delivery business. They are focused on implementing water conservation measures.

10 Denver Water spends over $1M a year to maintain and operate the canal and trail.

11 HLC Planning Initiative Urgency: Towering cottonwoods disappearing at an alarming rate Multiple dangerous road crossings along trail Over developed environment resulting in reduced wildlife habitat and native vegetation 3-Year Planning Initiative: Phase I: Visioning and Outreach Phase 2: Master Planning and Implementation Planning Phase I Goals: Maintain ongoing, strong engagement from the varied jurisdictions Educate the public about the new realities of water and the HLC Address the diverse array of communities along the Canal Consolidate results into a common vision

12 *CORE TEAM:! Jurisdictions Arapahoe County City of Aurora City and County of Denver Denver Water Douglas County NGO s High Line Canal Conservancy CORE TEAM/ DENVER WATER (OWNER) OUTREACH AND VISION PLANNER *HLCWG MEMBERS: Jurisdictions Arapahoe County Arapahoe County OSTAB City of Aurora Aurora Open Space Advisory Board Centennial Cherry Hills Village City and County of Denver Denver Water Douglas County Greenwood Village Highlands Ranch Littleton South Suburban Parks and Recreation District Citizen Groups and NGOs HLC Preservation Association South Metro Land Conservancy Trust for Public Land Cherry Hills Land Preserve Friends and Observers Colorado State Parks Colorado State Trails Program Colorado Division of Wildlife Greenwood Village Foundation HIGH LINE CANAL WORKING GROUP* PLANNING TEAM HIGH LINE CANAL CONSERVANCY High Line Canal Outreach and Vision Planning DRAFT!7(16(2015!

13 HLC Conservancy Members Board of Directors Nina Beardsley Itin, Community Leader, Chair Marty Zeller, Conservation Partners, Vice Chair & Chair of Planning Task Force Dirk McDermott, Altira Group, Vice Chair Mike Rosser,Community Leader, Secretary Karl Friedman, Friedman Family Foundation, Treasurer Paula Herzmark, Denver Health and Hospitals, Denver Water Board, Chair of Governance Task Force Harriet Crittenden LaMair, Executive Director, HLCC Jock Bickert, Public Relations and Data Base James Bolt, Ex. Vice President, CBRE, Corporate Relations Councilwoman Peggy Lehmann, Denver City Council, Ex Officio David Lorenz, former Executive Director, South Suburban Parks & Recreation District, Regional Relations and Planning Task Force Commissioner Nancy Sharpe, Arapahoe County, Ex Officio Member Tom Waymire, High Line Canal Preservation Association, Community Relations and HLC History Tracy Young, Aurora Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources, Regional Relations and Planning Council of Advisors Honorary Chair, Mayor Michael Hancock Elaine Asarch, Civic Center Conservancy Pam Beardsley, Community Leader, Philanthropist Bruce Beckman, City Council, Littleton Susan Beckman, Former Commissioner, Arapahoe County Laura Christman, Mayor, Cherry Hills Village Nancy Doty, Arapahoe County Commissioner Judy and Newell Grant, Philanthropists Tom Gougeon, The Gates Family Foundation Anthony Graves, Office of Mayor Hancock Scott Gilmore, Denver Parks and Recreation Happy Haynes, former Council Member, Denver Judith Judd, Attorney Bob LeGare, Aurora City Council Vorrie Moon, City Council, Centennial Andy Nielson, Anderson Mason Dale Architects Sarah Rockwell, Partner, Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell Denise Rose, Greenwood Village City Council Trey Rogers, Partner, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Jeff Shoemaker, The Greenway Foundation Harold Smethills, Sterling Ranch Ken Snyder, PlaceMatters Linda Strand, GOCO Board Denver Water Tim Wohlgenant, Trust for Public Land Kate Kramer, Sand Creek Greenway Jeff Shoemaker, The Greenway Foundation

14 High Line Canal Working Group Members! Arapahoe County Nancy Sharpe, Commissioner Nancy Jackson, Commissioner (alternate) Shannon Carter, Open Spaces Program City of Aurora Bob LeGare, City Council Tracy Young, Parks, Recreation & Open Space City of Centennial Vorry Moon, City Council Daniel Krzyznowski, Principal Planner City of Cherry Hills Village Laura Christman, Mayor Jay Goldie, Public Works City and County of Denver Peggy Lehmann, City Council Jay Henke, Parks and Recreation Department Denver Water Brandon Ransom, Recreation City of Greenwood Village Denise Rose, City Council Suzanne Moore, Parks, Trails & Recreation Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District Carrie Ward, Parks, Recreation & Open Space City of Littleton Bruce Beckman, City Council Mike Braaten, Deputy City Manager South Suburban Parks and Recreation District Pam Eller, Board of Directors Other Groups Arapahoe County Open Space & Trails Advisory Board Sharon Powers Aurora Open Space Advisory Board, Michael Rosser Cherry Hills Land Preserve, Klasina VanderWerf High Line Canal Preservation Association, Tom Waymire High Line Partners Conservancy, Harriet Crittenden LaMair Douglas County Jill Repella, Commissioner Randy Burkhardt, Parks, Trails & Building Grounds

15 High Line Canal! Three Year Planning Initiative Project Expense! 2015! 2016! 2017! Total Budget! Planning Functions HLPC*! Consultants and Planning Services!! $119,700! $135,000! $142,000! $396,700! $166,666! $166,666! $166,666! $500,000! TOTALS! $286,366! $301,666! $308,666! $896,700! *Over 70% of the HLCC staff time will be directly committed to this planning initiative. Therefore these figures represent 70% of the staff costs for HLCC over the period of time shown.!! Bold amounts are secured. Italics are committed or highly likely.!!

16 Partnership of Funding Source Partners TOTALS Arapahoe County* $70,000 $40,000 $70,000 $180,000! Denver Water* $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $210,000! Other Jurisdictions* $60,000 $70,000 $85,000 $215,000! Urban Drainage --- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000! GOCO $75, $60,000 $135,000! Gates Family Found*** $50,000 $30,000 $40,000 $120,000! Corporate, Private 0 $6,700 $15,000 $21,700! TOTALS $325,000 $220,700 $350,000 $896,700!! Numbers in italics are secured! * Note: DW and AC have both committed $130,000 a each for 2015 start up and planning costs combined. This is the planning portion.!! **This represents the jurisdictions the Canal passes through, including: Douglas County, Adams County, South Suburban Parks and Rec District, Highlands Ranch, Littleton, Centennial, Greenwood Village, Cherry Hills Village, Denver and Aurora. This funding is highly probable and may exceed this amount. Discussions with each of these governmental entities are in progress.!! *** Gates has committed a total of $150,000 over three years; however, this represents the amount directly allocated to planning.!!!

17 Proposed Jurisdictional Funding Jurisdiction* !!! Arapahoe $80,000 $80,000 $80,000! Adams $5,000 $10,000 $15,000! Aurora $15,000 $20,000 $30,000! Cherry Hills Village $10,000 $15,000 $20,000! Centennial $10,000 $15,000 $20,000! Douglas County $10,000 $20,000 $30,000! Denver $5,000* $20,000 $30,000! Greenwood Village $10,000 $15,000 $20,000! Highlands Ranch $10,000 $15,000 $20,000! Littleton $10,000 $15,000 $20,000! SSPRD $10,000 $15,000 $20,000! Bold amounts are secured. Denver will put additional monies in the 2016 budget! Arapahoe is included separately in the budget.! The total requested exceeds the budget total in recognition of the potential for underfunding in one or more jurisdictions.!

18 High Line Canal Conservancy PRESERVE PROTECT ENHANCE FOR ALL FOREVER

19 ! Tangible End Products Phase I! Comprehensive database of stakeholders Summary documents from each of the public outreach efforts Analysis of community values, issues and ideas organized geographically and prioritized, as they relate to future planning Analysis of the implications, benefits and impacts of different use and management options, including impacts on the tree canopy, cost considerations and how such options might interface with the storm water feasibility study Analysis of how vision plans can provide for the equitable distribution of resources along the corridor Listing of new outdoor recreation opportunities, and land acquisition or trail enhancements along the corridor Final vision document that is broadly supported, and can be used to: 1. Demonstrate broad public and stakeholder views and ideas for the HLC by geographic area and for the entire resource; and 2. Identify a broadly supported vision and options for the future of the Canal that will guide the development of a master planning process.

20

21 Drainage basin of over 600 acres including commercial areas on University

22 In the Links Golf Course

23 Banks and channel are degrading increasing sediment load downstream

24 Erosion is taking edge of sand trap

25 To: From: Subject: Board of Directors Bruce Lebsack Staff Report - Update on Ice Arena In May, staff recommended to the Board that funds budgeted for survey work, not anticipated to be needed this year, be used to contract for a needs assessment and feasibility study for the potential Ice Arena Project ( Project ). Although we had not completed our due diligence at that time it was anticipated that PFM would be the best fit based on initial interviews. As background, the Metro District has been participating in conversations with the developer regarding the proposed development plans for Filing 144, 147 and 156. The opportunity to include an ice rink in this development has been discussed to fill both a need in the south Denver Metro area as well as provide an anchor for the economic development that will be generated from this development. Metro District staff has continued these discussions in anticipation of developing a business plan for the capital and operating costs for the ice rink that would meet the time requirements of the proposed overall development and a potential significant user. We had originally planned on starting the bulk of work in early July to accommodate various vacation schedules of our staff and PFM as well as a credit review by S&P of Centennial s debt. However, we ran into additional unexpected delays from PFM due to additional vacation schedules that resulted in there losing correspondence from us. After resolving this issue, staff had a subsequent meeting with PFM concerning the Project. Based on preliminary discussions with PFM, we had anticipated that they could perform the needs assessment and act as the financial advisor for the bond refunding that is necessary to help fund the Project. At a follow-up meeting it became apparent that there had been a miscommunication and that PFM s prior experience with ice projects was not in preparing needs assessment but rather reviewing them in order to assist with the sale of bonds in the non-exempt market. At the August Study Session I asked for and received: acknowledgement from the Board that the approved funding could be used for another firm other than PFM to prepare the needs assessment for the project; approval to modify and fast track the request for qualifications and scope of work ( RFQ ) process as a result of the delays we had experienced.

26 Staff update ice arena September 21, 2015 Page 2 Staff then prepared a detailed draft RFQ and scope of work that we distributed to a local firm in order to receive comments concerning the estimated time to complete the requirements. Based on their comments that the proposed RFQ would result in a lengthy and costly study process, we revised the RFQ to: encompass two distinct phases an initial go or no-go analysis that could be completed relatively quickly to get us back on track and then, if the recommendation was a go, a more detailed programmatic themed phase; require the consultant to use, but verify, data that our staff had already acquired rather than starting from scratch; emphasize that this truly was a qualification based RFQ and that although price would be a factor it was just as important to demonstrate experience in ice projects. With the new RFQ completed we sent it out to four Colorado based firms that had demonstrated some level of experience with ice projects and identification by the local hockey community. Two of the four firms responded BallardKing and Greenplay. Based on the responses received we are now recommending that the firm of BallardKing be retained for the needs assessment. This recommendation is based on the responses to the RFQ which indicated that BallardKing: 1. Has more experience with not only hockey but also diversified community programming; 2. More hands-on experience with the development of ice arenas; 3. A better understanding of the requirements of the two-phases that we are requesting; 4. The ability to meet our timeframe; and 5. Cost which is approximately 70% of the estimate from Greenplay, including lower cost for Phase I when the go or no-go decision would be made. In addition, since we are no longer anticipating receiving financial advisor support from PFM, Stephanie and I met with Dee Wisor and Kim Crawford of Butler and Snow (formerly of Sherman and Howard) who worked on the 2005 and 2008 issues that we anticipate refunding if the go decision is reached. We are going to recommend that they serve as bond counsel and that Ed Walsh serve as underwriters counsel. This is a reversal of roles from previous issues that we feel is warranted based on the changes of alignment of the firms since those issues. Dee and Kim provided several local firms that they felt could handle any refunding. We will pursue this in anticipation of a go decision.