HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/20/2021 - RESOLUTION 2021-045 ADOPTING A REVISED POLICY FOR Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 20, 2021
City Council
STAFF
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv.
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2021-045 Adopting a Revised Policy for Reviewing Service Plans of Metropolitan Districts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item has been amended to include the Exhibits to the Policy.
The purpose of this item is to revise the City’s current policy for reviewing service plans for metropolitan districts
adopted by Council in Resolution 2019-016 on February 5, 2019 (2019 Policy). More specifically, to revise the
2019 Policy to require a pre-application meeting with Council as an early step in the approval process, emphasize
disclosure and transparency requirements, and add an evaluation points system for the public benefits to be
provided by metropolitan districts (Metro Districts) proposed to serve primarily residential development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Policy Context and Direction
In July 2008, Council adopted Resolution 2008-069 in which it approved the City’s first policy setting forth
guidelines for City staff and City Council to review proposed service plans for Metro Districts (2008 Policy). A
Metro District service plan is the document that authorizes the establishment of a Metro District and grants to it
the powers it may have to issue debt, impose taxes and fees, construct public improvements and provide certain
governmental services (Service Plan). The Service Plan for a Metro District to be organized within the City must
first be approved by the City Council. The 2008 Policy provided the City would not consider Service Plans that
proposed Metro Districts to serve only residential development, but instead would only consider Service Plans
for “predominately commercial” developments, meaning developments having an estimated assessed value for
“non-residential uses” of no less than 90% of the entire development.
In August 2018, Council adopted Resolution 2018-079 to significantly revise the 2008 Policy (2018 Policy). The
2018 Policy was adopted to eliminate the predominately-commercial requirement and to allow the consideration
of Service Plans for Metropolitan Districts proposed to serve primarily residential developments.
The Council indicated the 2018 Policy was adopted to address the market conditions residential developments
were then facing in “rising costs for land, water, infrastructure and construction” which was “creating a
disincentive for residential development in the City to provide residents with the kind of special benefits that
would also help the City to achieve its various policy objectives, such as affordable housing, environmental
sustainability and smart growth.”
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 2
To address this concern, the 2018 Policy established a “Public Benefit Assessment” in the review criteria for
Service Plans to be used to evaluate whether the proposed Service Plan would “deliver public benefits through
extraordinary development outcomes.” The 2018 Policy described and gave examples of such public benefits.
The outcomes identified included environmental sustainability, critical public infrastructure, smart growth
management and affordable housing.
The 2018 Policy also established other criteria, guidelines and processes to be followed by staff and Council in
considering applications for Service Plans and it revised the fees to be paid by the applicants for the City’s costs
to review and consider the applications. In addition, attached as exhibits to the 2018 Policy were two examples
of “Model Service Plans,” one for single Metropolitan District Service Plans and one for multiple Metropolitan
District Service Plans. These Model Service Plans are to be used as a tool in evaluating whether a proposed
Service Plan has addressed all the criteria in the 2018 Policy and to identify any deficiencies for Council.
After adopting the 2018 Policy, Council considered and approved three Service Plans for Metropolitan Districts.
From that experience, staff proposed several revisions to the 2018 Policy to improve the review and approval
process for proposed Service Plans and to add workforce or attainable housing as a new example of an
extraordinary public benefit. Changes were also proposed to further update and improve the Model Service
Plans attached to the 2018 Policy. These proposed changes to the 2018 Policy were made by Council in its
adoption of Resolution 2019-016 resulting in the current 2019 Policy.
The 2019 Policy generally supports the formation of a Metropolitan District where it will deliver “extraordinary
public benefits” that align with the goals and objectives of the City. These aspirational goals are embodied in
several adopted long-range plans, including City Plan, Our Climate Future, the Transit and Transportation Master
Plans, the Housing Strategic Plan, Arts and Culture Master Plan, and others covering multiple City and
community programs. Since “extraordinary public benefits” are difficult to define, one of the primary objectives
in creating a residential Metropolitan District evaluation point system is to develop metrics that capture those
community benefits in a clear, measurable and predictable way.
On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 083, 2020, imposing a six-month moratorium on new
applications for Metro District Service Plans. The City Council did so because of media reports and citizen input
raising concerns and questions about various taxation, debt, financial, legal and governance problems with Metro
Districts through-out Colorado. The City Council therefore directed staff to investigate, research and seek public
input regarding these problems, and for any other problems they may identify, and to develop and present to the
City Council for its consideration revisions to the 2019 Policy to ensure that future Service Plans approved by
the City Council and Metro Districts organized within the City are in the best interests of the City and its residents.
City staff has completed this process and has identified four areas for improvement of the 2019 Policy:
Notification, transparency and governance requirements;
Providing guidance on how residential metropolitan districts can provide “extraordinary public benefits”;
Reviewing the relative cost burdens given that residents within a Metropolitan District pay higher taxes; and
Exploring opportunities for Council to provide direction earlier in the approval process for Metro District
Service Plans.
Overview of Proposed Changes
To address these issues, staff is proposing several changes as part of updates to the City’s Metropolitan District
Policy:
1. Approval Process Updates: Include a required pre-application meeting with Council for applicants to receive
direction and feedback prior to making a formal submittal.
2. Emphasizing Transparency & Disclosure Requirements, including recent changes implemented by the State
of Colorado and disclosure notification requirements in title work included as part of the City’s Model Service
Plans.
3. A new Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation Points System, a points-based evaluation tool providing
direction and clarifying expectations on what constitutes “extraordinary public benefits” for Residential
Metropolitan Districts.
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 3
The changes to the 2019 Policy proposed below will be incorporated into the new policy attached as Exhibit “A”
to this Resolution (Proposed 2021 Policy), which Proposed 2021 Policy will supersede and replace the 2019
Policy if the Resolution is adopted. The proposed changes may also be found in Attachment 1, which is the
redlined 2019 Policy showing the revisions being made by the proposed 2021 Policy.
Approval Process Updates
Prior to the formal submittal of a new Metropolitan District, staff proposes a new requirement to conduct a public,
pre-application meeting with Council. Similar to a conceptual review, which is a required part of the City’s
development review process, such a meeting provides an opportunity for Council to provide input and promote
desired outcomes early in the process while the Metropolitan District and associated development are in a
preliminary design phase.
The pre-application meeting will also provide an opportunity for staff to provide analysis on proposed public
benefits for a residential Metropolitan District using the new points-based evaluation tool described below.
Transparency & Disclosure Enhancements
The State of Colorado currently has certain disclosure processes that provide greater transparency for
consumers making home purchases within a Metropolitan District, including the following.
Taxing information for a Metropolitan District is included in the tax certificate available at the time of
purchase.
The Colorado Real Estate Commission’s standard form for Purchase and Sale Agreement of Residential
Property has a disclosure, printed in bold all-cap type, informing the purchaser that the property may be in
a special district and subject to property tax, and encouraging buyers to get more information about special
taxing districts.
The title policy for each home includes all recorded documents related to any special district the home is
within, including a Metropolitan District, which typically includes the Service Plan, order and decree
organizing the District and the public disclosure statement.
In addition to these steps required by the State, the City has included the following items in the current
Metropolitan District Model Service Plans that are attached as exhibits to the 2019 Policy and these items
will continue to be required under the Proposed 2021 Policy to provide transparency:
Consent for the City to publish on the fcgov.com site the annual report and fiscal statements submitted by a
Metropolitan District.
All districts must host a minimum of three meetings annually. The intent is to host these meetings generally
on a quarterly basis, but a Metropolitan District may meet more frequently if it chooses.
Exhibit K to the Model Service Plans (See Attachment 10) is a disclosure notice required to be given to
purchasers of residential properties before they enter into their purchase and sale agreement, and it includes
information such as:
o The maximum number of mills that can be levied.
o The maximum property tax that can be collected based on the estimated average assessed value of a
property.
o A chart comparing property taxes in the district to taxes outside a district, and
o Contact information for the district’s board of directors.
This notice is also required to be recorded with Larimer County Clerk and Recorder so the notice should be part
of the title policy information a prospective purchaser of residential property will receive.
Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation Points System
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 4
Staff is also recommending the use of a new evaluation tool to provide clear, predictable guidance to Council,
staff, and developments on how extraordinary public benefits can be provided as part of new Residential
Metropolitan Districts. Staff reviewed several different evaluation system options with stakeholders and ultimately
settled on an outcome based “points system.” The evaluation system is intended to be used for all new
Residential Metropolitan Districts.
Under the proposed system, new districts would be evaluated across three primary categories: housing,
energy/water, and neighborhood livability. Districts are expected to meet a minimum number of points in each
category to ensure public benefits are provided across multiple policy goal areas as outlined in relevant City
policy plans.
While each category is designed to reflect the prescriptive outcomes from City policy objectives, there are
multiple options and paths available on how a Metropolitan District and associated development can achieve
these outcomes, providing flexibility for unique site and development program contexts. All elements satisfying
the evaluation system are intended to exceed standards described in the City’s adopted Land Use Code, Energy
Code, and other related provisions of City Code. The performance requirements are intended to bridge the gap
between existing codes and the more aspirational aspects of City policy plans.
A minimum number of points must be provided in each of the outcome areas, as follows:
Housing - 5 points
Energy Conservation and Renewables - 10 points
Indoor Water Conservation - 3 points
Outdoor Water Conservation - 7 points
Neighborhood Livability - 5 points
Points have been weighted based on efficacy, community priority and relative ease of implementation. Particular
focus was placed upon Metropolitan District impacts on the residential consumer, who pays district property
taxes in addition to other taxes, fees, and monthly utility bills. The resulting system is designed to help reduce
costs to district residents primarily through savings from reduced energy and water consumption, and to help
address the community’s increasing need for additional housing options and diversity.
Housing Elements
Recently adopted policy plans including City Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan identify goals to increase
housing affordability and promote greater choice and diversity in housing options. The housing component of
the evaluation system promotes outcomes designed to increase the proportion of housing within a Metropolitan
District which provide a combination of the following options:
Deed-restricted home ownership opportunities up to 120% of area median income;
Options for different housing types and housing sizes between 800 – 2,200 square feet;
Opportunities for attached or detached accessory dwelling units; and
Deed-restricted rental opportunities up to 60% of area median income.
A total of five points are required within the housing options summarized below. Detailed technical specifications
of each option can be found in Attachment 2, which includes the full Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation
Points System.
Housing Supply, Diversity, Choice Points
A) 10% of for sale units do not exceed 120% AMI 4 / 5*
B) Limit unit size for 20% of homes (multiple size categories) 2 / 3*
C) 10% of units contain detached or attached accessory dwelling units 2
* One additional point awarded if housing units also meet energy performance targets or additional unit size
categories are provided.
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 5
Affordable Rental Housing Points
A) 10% of rental units serve an income average not to exceed 60% Area Median Income 2
B) 10% of rental units serve an income average not to exceed 60% Area Median Income
and do not use competitive funding sources
3
Under these options, a Metropolitan District development is likely to pursue multiple options to meet its required
number of points. It is anticipated districts will likely focus efforts within the housing supply, diversity, and choice
category as it can be challenging to deliver affordable rental housing units (60% area median income or less)
given the limited and competitive environment for affordable housing funding.
Recognizing this, additional points are available to those districts able to provide affordable rental units without
using competitive local funding sources or for providing housing units which meet Zero Energy Ready standards
that provide monthly cost benefits to residents through lower energy use and utility bills.
Energy and Water Elements
The building sector is Fort Collins’ top energy consumer and contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. For new
construction, building right the first time locks in energy savings and can offer benefits for decades and help
meet City energy, water conservation and sustainability goals. This is of particular benefit to residents within a
Metropolitan District since energy and water cost savings help offset additional property taxes associated with
the District’s construction and on-going maintenance and operations.
The energy performance options presented below place an emphasis on providing options to enhance energy
performance in new homes and the development of pathways towards zero carbon building by 2030. Multiple
energy options were developed to provide an achievable path towards more efficient, healthy, and equitable
homes with lower energy use and utility costs. A focus remains on proven building technologies and best
practices to promote a reduction or elimination of fossil fuel burning appliances and alignment with established
programs that assist in grid management.
A total of 10 points are needed within the Enhanced Energy Performance, Energy Components and Renewable
Technologies categories as summarized below and at least one option from the Enhanced Energy Performance
category must be selected. Detailed technical specifications of each option can be found in Attachment 2, which
includes the full Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation Points System table.
Enhanced Energy Performance Points
A) Department of Energy Zero Energy (ZER) Ready Construction 4
B) OR Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index of 47 or less (without solar) 4
C) OR Energy Rating Index (ERI) of 40 or lower 3
D) OR Net Zero Energy (HERS of 0 or less) 7
At least one Enhanced Energy Performance option must be selected. Each option also requires balanced
mechanical whole dwelling ventilation and third-party compliance and certification.
Energy Components Points
A) Heat homes with efficient electric heat 2
B) 5% homes built to Passive House standard 3
C) Air tightness and ventilation (balanced ventilation, heat recovery ventilators, energy
recovery ventilators)
1
D) District heating & cooling (ex: neighborhood ground source heat pump) 3
E) Demand response connected thermostats 1
F) Air source heat pump electric water heater 2-3
G) EV charging for 7% of parking for attached/multifamily units 1
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 6
Renewable Points
A) Install 50/75/100% of total energy needs in solar 1 - 3
B) Install interactive grid energy storage 1 - 3
Similarly, points for water conserving measures, both for indoor and outdoor water use, have been included as
a key part of the evaluation system. Since many of the anticipated residential Metropolitan Districts will be served
by water providers other than the City, the evaluation system was created to be consistent with the operational
needs of all water providers serving Fort Collins’ residents.
A total of 10 points are needed to satisfy the water categories, made up of 3 points from indoor water use and 7
points from outdoor water use options. Detailed technical specifications of each option can be found in
Attachment 2, which includes the full Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation Points System table.
Indoor Water Points
A) WaterSense fixtures exceeding current Code 2
B) Leak detection & notification systems 1
C) Sub-metering for privately owned multifamily development 1.5
D) Efficient plumbing design (WaterSense New Home Specification) .5
E) Indoor Water Use Innovation 1
Outdoor Water Points
A) Efficient Irrigation Systems (WaterSense certified) 2
B) Efficient front landscaping (water budget of 10 gallons or less per square foot) 2
C) Separate drip system for trees within parkways/medians 2
D) Efficient common area water use (sliding scale based on water budget) 1 - 3
E) Stormwater innovation 1
F) Rain barrels (half point for every two, 100-gallon barrels) .5 - 1
G) Outdoor water use innovation 1 - 2
Neighborhood Livability Elements
City Plan encourages creativity in the design and construction of new neighborhoods that:
Provide a unifying and interconnected framework of streets, sidewalks, walkway spines and other public
spaces.
Expand housing options, including higher density and mixed-use buildings.
Offer opportunities to age in place.
Improve access to services and amenities; and
Incorporate unique site conditions.
While many aspects of these neighborhood-building principles are embodied in the Land Use Code, qualities
that make a neighborhood truly extraordinary are not always included within development plans. Neighborhood
Livability points are intended to promote additional improvements that elevate the quality of our neighborhoods
and the built environment to improve livability for Metro District residents and, in some cases, provide benefits
to the larger community.
A total of five points are required across the Neighborhood Livability categories of transportation, neighborhood
amenities, natural environment, and health, culture, education. Detailed technical specifications of each option
can be found in Attachment 2, which includes the full Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation Points System
table.
Transportation Points
A) Off-site Trail Connections 1
B) Exemplary Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements 1
C) Publicly-accessible Level 3 EV charging stations 1
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 7
D) School trail connections 1
E) Transportation Innovation 1
Neighborhood Amenities Points
A) Access to essential neighborhood services (based on # of land uses) 1 - 3
B) Vertical mixed-use buildings 2
C) Community gathering spaces 1
D) Community workspace 1
E) Common areas food production 1
F) Neighborhood amenities innovation 1
Natural Environment Points
A) Access to parks/open spaces (within ¼ mi) 1
B) Enhanced wildlife habitats / ecological restoration 1
C) Expansion of adjacent natural habitat 1
D) Natural environment innovation 1
Health, Culture, Education Points
A) Universal design (zero step entries - 2pts) 1 - 2
B) .5% Arts & Culture capital infrastructure budget 1
C) Sustained educational programming 1
D) Community engagement excellence 1
E) Health, Culture or Education Innovation 1
Evaluation System Recap
The City has many defined aspirational goals related to housing, energy/water use, and neighborhood livability.
The evaluation system and its components attempt to influence Metropolitan District development towards
outcomes that will help the community achieve these aspirational goals and demonstrate extraordinary public
benefits. While the required number of points in each category guides the type and amount of extraordinary
public benefits a Metropolitan District should be providing, approval of new Metropolitan District Service Plans
remains at the sole discretion of Council.
System Review Cycle
Throughout the development of the evaluation system, internal and external stakeholders determined there was
a need for a consistent review and update cycle to evaluate its performance and ensure points and options are
properly aligned as the City adjusts and increments future building, energy, and land use codes. A key goal for
the evaluation system is that Metropolitan District development provides public benefits by exceeding standards
that are required for all development in the community.
Staff proposes a 2-year cadence to updates to the evaluation tool to ensure alignment with anticipated code
changes and to provide an opportunity to review the efficacy of the tool and adjust options and/or required points
to ensure outcomes aligns with community and Council goals and priorities.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Except for the additional staff time attributed to the review of Metropolitan District Evaluation System applications,
there are no direct financial impacts due to the proposed policy amendments.
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 8
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS and COMMENTS
STAKEHOLDER COMMENT/CONCERN ADDRESSED
Affordable
Housing Board;
recommend
approval (7-0)
Supportive that housing affordability is
addressed in the evaluation system and that
housing variety is promoted.
Enough flexibility is provided for the
development community to respond to
housing needs specific to their project context.
Point weighting adjusted to
reflect Board perspective, e.g.-
increased points for Accessory
Dwelling Units.
Energy Board;
conditional
recommendation
(8-0)
Staff conducted second review with the Board
at their April 8, 2021 hearing after revising
Energy points required and adding additional
options.
Concerns raised the revised energy
performance requirements are no longer
ambitious enough.
Expressed desire for additional
transit/transportation elements.
Board recommended additional third-party
verification for performance requirements be
added as well as requirements for balanced
ventilation system in homes.
Staff incorporated Board
recommendations for additional
third-party verification and
balanced ventilation as elements
of the evaluation system.
Publicly-accessible EV charging
stations added as Neighborhood
Livability component.
Transit system and large, off-site
public infrastructure
improvements fall outside of the
evaluation system and are not
included. Staff recommends such
public improvements be
considered on a case-by-case
basis.
Planning and
Zoning Board;
recommend
approval (7-0)
Staff conducted a second review with the
Board at their April 1, 2021 hearing after
adjustments made since prior hearing in
February.
At February meeting, interest in adding
flexibility or innovation elements to several
categories.
Questions about the cost recovery benefits
provided by public benefits.
Questions on the efficacy of Accessory
Dwelling Units and smaller house sizes to
address housing affordability.
Recognition the elements of the evaluation
system help raise the bar for the balance of
development in the community and as a
means to test future revisions to various
development codes.
Interest in evaluating outcomes from the first
proposed metropolitan districts to use the
evaluation system; may be a well-educated
guess and a need to make adjustments.
‘Innovation’ points added in many
categories to improve flexibility.
Adjustments to accessory
dwelling units and unit size
categories to address changing
demographics and improve
affordability that may result from
smaller units.
Donation of ‘improved’ land, i.e.-
served by streets and utilities is
not economically feasible.
Economic
Advisory
Commission;
recommend
approval (7-0)
The EAC promotes the use of incentives and
cost savings to reduce consumer cost burdens
for water and electric utility use.
Water metrics should be more specific.
The proposed system provides a good trial to
see how the market responds.
No changes; water metrics
provide sufficient detail.
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 9
Natural
Resources
Advisory Board;
recommend
approval (7-0)
Consider increasing the points for Passive
House scores above those for HERS and
NetZero which may more appropriately
prioritize conservation.
Add gray water as an option.
The point structure should focus on energy
and water conservation and less on
neighborhood livability amenities that will add
to consumer costs.
Graywater options are not
supported through policies in
ELCO and FCLW Districts which
serve the anticipated majority of
Fort Collins’ Metropolitan
Districts.
Overall weighting of evaluation
system emphasizes energy and
water conservation.
Water Board;
recommend
approval (10-0)
May be counterintuitive to add requirements to
cost effective homes when housing
affordability is a broad community goal.
Questions/concerns if the level of
requirements across all categories is practical
or achievable.
No changes to water
conservation elements
Transportation
Board; no action
taken
Board took no action and requested Board
discussion to be represented by meeting
minutes.
Comment that affordability requirements could
be increased (15% of homes) to offset higher
taxes for homeowners in a district.
Concern transportation and transit elements
are underrepresented in the evaluation
system.
Transit system and large, off-site
public infrastructure
improvements fall outside of the
evaluation system and are not
included. Staff recommends such
public improvements be
considered on a case-by-case
basis.
Transportation ‘innovation’ points
category added in the
Neighborhood Livability category.
Letters and meeting minutes from the Boards and Commissions providing recommendations and comments on
the proposed Metropolitan District Policy changes. Draft minutes from several Boards were not accessible before
publication of agenda materials and staff intends to provide a read-before memo to attach these minutes as they
become available. (Attachments 5-9)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff’s proposed changes to the 2019 Policy was a highly iterative process supported by many internal and
external stakeholders, including:
Interdepartmental staff/teams
Multiple stakeholder focus group discussions, including three facilitated by the Institute for the Built
Environment
Reviews and input from seven Boards and Commissions and two City Council work sessions
Interviews with individual stakeholders, experts, and staff from other front range communities
Third-party energy points evaluation (AZ-based Mandalay Homes, multi-year Department of Energy award
winning homebuilder)
A series of comments were collected during the course of stakeholder discussions that can be summarized
under the following major topics listed below. The focus group came to informed consent on the overall approach
to using a points system, although individual members expressed some reservations about both the amount of
burden placed on the development community to satisfy the standards and in some categories the options were
not ambitious enough.
Financial Viability
If the evaluation system is too expensive for either the landowner or developer, sufficient housing will not be
built and overall benefits of the higher standards of a Metro District may not be realized.
Agenda Item 29
Item # 29 Page 10
Data about the borrowing capacity of non-metropolitan district financed projects obtaining financing in the
17-18% range may not be accurate. If a development does not need a Metro District, there is no reason to
create one. Metro Districts cost $80,000 to $100,000 to get approved, are hard to get approved, difficult to
operate and increase the price of homes being sold versus development without a Metro District.
Roadways, sewer lines, water lines, parks, trails, public open space, underpasses, are items typically
associated with metropolitan district qualifying items. If that is the assumption, then the evaluation system
may be operating outside the purview of the Metro Districts.
Enactment of the system will ultimately drive the price of land down for the property owner and the price of
homes up for the end user, the home buyer.
Equity
Metro Districts are not necessarily a big windfall to developers. Large-scale “public” builders probably will
not go through the evaluation system as they already have access to capital, but other private developers
do not have the access and it helps level the playing-field between local builders or those with a vision and
the large public builders. If it becomes too difficult, you will only see the large national builders in the future.
Projects of scale require builders who can produce certain volumes and have sufficient capital access; most
of those builders may not build to the proposed standards.
Flexibility
It is going to be difficult to find the right balance between being aggressive with City policy priorities and
finding what developers/owners/buyers want.
With some projects it may be more appropriate to target affordable housing, while for others it may make
sense to target energy and water goals.
Practical Application
The bar may be set too high for the proposed energy conservation points (first iteration). There may not be
enough builders familiar or competent with all these regulations currently. A revised version also received
comments it may not be ambitious enough.
Evaluating projects that are not legally entitled and constructed may be inappropriate to base the evaluation
system on. It is easy to promise exceptionally high standards, but hard to deliver.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2019 Metro District Policy with Redlines (PDF)
2. Residential Metro District Evaluation Points System Table (PDF)
3. Work Session Summary, January 2020 (PDF)
4. Work Session Summary, November 2020 (PDF)
5. Affordable Housing Board Letter of Support (PDF)
6. Affordable Housing Board Minutes (PDF)
7. Economic Advisory Commission Letter of Support (PDF)
8. Water Board Meeting Minutes (PDF)
9. Transportation Board Meeting Minutes (draft) (PDF)
10. Disclosure Notice - Exhibit K to Model Service Plans (PDF)
11. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS POLICY FOR REVIEWING SERVICE PLANS FOR
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
February 5, 2019April 20, 2021
Introduction.
This policy establishes the criteria, guidelines and processes to be followed by City Council and City staff in
considering and by applicants in submitting to the City service plans for the organization of metropolitan
districts or amendments to those plans (“Policy”), as provided in Colorado’s Special District Act in Article 1
of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Act”). The Act provides that metropolitan districts are
quasi‐municipal corporations and political subdivisions (“District”) that can be organized within the
boundaries of a municipality provided the municipality’s governing body approves by resolution the
proposed service plan for the District. Under the Act, the service plan constitutes the document that
delineates the specific powers and functions the District can exercise, including the facilities and services
it can provide, the taxes it can impose and its permitted financial arrangements (the “Service Plan”). The
Act requires Districts to conform to their Service Plans.
Section 1 – Policy Objectives and Statements.
A. This Policy generally supports the formation of a District where it will deliver extraordinary public
benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary public
benefits are provided by the District or by the entity organizing the District because the District
exists to provide public improvements.
B. A District, when properly structured, can enhance the quality of development in the City. The City
is receptive to District formation that provides extraordinary public benefits which could not be
practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which would be
construed as competing or duplicative.
C. The approval of a District Service Plan is at the sole discretion of City Council, which may reject,
approve, or conditionally approve Service Plans on a case‐by‐case basis. Nothing in this Policy is
intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit this discretion of City Council, which retains full
authority regarding the approval, terms, conditions and limitations of all Service Plans.
D. Policy Objectives for All Districts.
The City will evaluate any proposed District and its Service Plan based on the District’s ability to
deliver public benefits through extraordinary development outcomes, specific examples are
provided in Exhibit A and generally occur in the following four focus areas:
1. Environmental Sustainability Outcomes: Development of public improvements that deliver or
facilitate the delivery of specific and measurable environmental outcomes, including but
2
not limited to: (i) reduction of Green House Gases (“GHG”), (ii) conservation of water or
energy, (iii) encourage multimodal transportation, (iv) enhance community resiliency – against
future environmental events (e.g., flooding, drought, etc.); (v) increase renewable energy
capacity; and/or (vi) deliver other environmental outcomes.
2. Critical Public Infrastructure: Development of public improvements that address or facilitate
addressing significant infrastructure challenges previously identified by the City, either within
or proximate to the District, whether such improvements address a locally‐significant
challenge or a City‐wide challenge.
3. Smart Growth Management: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate
the delivery of specific design components that: (i) increase the density of development within
the District; (ii) establish, enhance or address the walkability and pedestrian friendliness of the
District; (iii) increase the availability of transit and/or multimodal oriented facilities; (iv) create
compelling public spaces; and/or (v) encourage mixed‐use development patterns.
4. Strategic Priorities: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate the delivery
of strategic priorities specified in the City’s existing long‐term strategic planning documents,
such as City Plan, Affordable Housing Plan, Economic Health Strategic Plan, and applicable Sub‐
Area Plans. These priorities include, but are not limited to:
a. Affordable Housing: Deliver or facilitate the delivery of additional affordable housing units
at the City’s defined level of Area Median Income (“AMI”) or below. The City defines
Affordable Housing as units affordable to a household earning 80 percent of AMI.
b. Workforce Housing: Deliver or facilitate the delivery of workforce housing units in the
City’s defined range of AMI. For purposes of this policy, Workforce Housing units shall be
defined as units affordable to a household earning between 81 percent and 120 percent
of AMI.
c. Infill/Redevelopment: Enable the infill or redevelopment of property within the City,
especially when such development is consistent with City Plan.
d. Economic Health Outcomes: Enable delivery of specific and measurable economic
outcomes, such as: (i) job growth; (ii) retention of an existing business; and/or (iii)
construction of a missing economic resource.
In determining whether a proposed District delivers extraordinary public benefits, the City may
consider: (i) ways in which the proposed improvements exceed the City’s minimum requirements
and standards; (ii) ways in which the existence of the District facilitates the extraordinary public
benefits and whether the extraordinary benefits are feasible without the District; (iii) ways in
which the proposed extraordinary benefits work together as a system to
3
deliver greater benefit to the community than individually; and (iv) any other factors the City
deems relevant under the circumstances.
E. Policy Objectives for Residential Districts:
1. In addition to being evaluated under the applicable policy objectives in Section 1.D. and the
evaluation criteria in Section 2.A., those Districts proposed to serve predominately residential
development, shall also be evaluated under the Residential Metro Districts Evaluation Points
System table attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (the
“Residential Evaluation Points System”).
2. For purposes of this Policy, a District shall be considered to serve predominately residential
development if more than ten percent (10%) of the estimated assessed value of the
development to be served by the district will be residential development (“Residential
District”).
5.3. The objective in applying the Residential Evaluation Points System to Residential Districts is to
ensure that the developments served by Residential Districts provide certain minimum
extraordinary public benefits in the areas of housing, energy conservation and renewables,
indoor and outdoor water conservation, and neighborhood livability, in order to help the City
achieve its goals set for these areas in the City’s adopted policy plans
E.F. Policy Statements:
1. Limited Use: The City wishes to exact a high standard of use for Districts thereby limiting their
use. An applicant project is expected to deliver extraordinary benefits across multiple City
objectives two or more of the objectives described in Section 1.D. of this Policy.
2. Broad and Demonstrable Public Benefit: Districts are expected to provide broad public benefit
and the applicant will be asked to demonstrate and provide assurances of those benefits. The
City will utilize the Service Plans, development agreements, and other contractual agreements
to document and enforce District commitments.
3. District Governance: It is the intent of the City that owner/resident control of Districts occur
as early as feasible. Service Plans should include governance structures that encourage and
accommodate this. The use of control Districts (also known as “service” or “managing”
Districts) that allow developers to control the other Districts that provide the tax revenues
beyond the time needed to repay the issued debt, is to be discouraged.
4. Basic Infrastructure Improvements: A District proposing to fund basic infrastructure
improvements will not be favorably received except when used to offset higher costs
associated with delivering public benefit through extraordinary development outcomes (see
Exhibit A for examples).
4
5. Minimum District Size: A District proposed to issue less than $7 million of authorized debt will
not be considered.
Section 2 – Evaluation Criteria
A. To provide City Council with information and an assessment consistent with this Policy, staff will
review and report on all District proposals in the following areas:
1. Public Benefit Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Scan: To comprehensively and consistently
evaluate District proposals, an interdisciplinary staff team, inclusive of representatives from
Planning, Economic Health, Sustainability, and other Departments as appropriate, will be
formed. This team will rely on the City’s Triple Bottom Line evaluation approach, and other
means, to assess a District proposal consistent with this Policy and City goals and objectives
more broadly.
2. Financial Assessment: All District proposals are required to submit a Financial Plan to the City
for review. Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting information which may
be necessary, the City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability. Additionally,
should a District desire to utilize District funding for basic infrastructure improvements, as
determined by the City in its sole discretion, staff will assess the value of this benefit against
public benefits received in exchange.
2.3. Residential Districts: All proposals for a Residential District are required to submit to the City
a written report and analysis of how the Residential District and the development it will serve
will achieve the minimum points required under the Residential Evaluation Points System.
3.4. Policy Evaluation: All proposals will be evaluated by City staff against this Policy and the City’s
“Model Service Plan” attached as Exhibit “BC” for single‐district Service Plans and as Exhibit
“CD” for multi‐district Service Plans, with any areas of difference being identified, evaluated
and reported to City Council.
Section 3 – Application Process
A. Process Overview: The application process is designed to provide early feedback to an applicant,
adequate time for a comprehensive staff review, and the appropriate steps and meeting
opportunities with decision makers.
B. Letter of Interest: Applicant will provide City with a Letter of Interest and pay the Letter of Interest
pre‐application fee (refer to fees below). The Letter of Interest shall contain the following:
1. Summary narrative of the proposed development and District proposal.
2. Sketch plan showing: property location and boundaries; surrounding land uses; proposed
use(s); proposed improvements (buildings, landscaping, parking/drive areas, water
treatment/detention, drainage); existing natural features (water bodies, wetlands, large trees,
wildlife, canals, irrigation ditches); utility line locations (if known); and photographs (helpful
5
but not required).
3. Clear justification for why a District is needed.
4. Explanation of public benefits, making specific reference to this Policy and other relevant City
documents. For Residential Districts this shall include a preliminary analysis of how the
proposal will achieve the minimum points required under the Residential Evaluation Points
System.
5. District proposal and Service Plan specifics, including: District powers and purpose; District
infrastructure and costs; mill levy rate (both debt and, operations and maintenance); term of
District; forecasted period of build‐out; proposed timeline for formation; and current
development status of project.
C. Staff Response to Letter of Interest: Staff will provide a written response to a Letter of Interest
within thirty (30) days of receipt and payment of the pre‐application hearingLetter of Interest fee.
D. Preliminary Staff Meeting with Applicant (Optional): Based on an initial review of the Letter of
Interest, staff may shall meet with the applicant to discuss the District proposal, potential public
benefits, initial staff feedback, the evaluation process, fees, and other application elements.
D.E. City Council Conceptual Review: Prior to the applicant submitting its formal application to the City
for City Council’s consideration of a proposed Service Plan, a hearing shall be scheduled before
City Council at which staff and the applicant shall present to City Council the applicant’s Letter of
Interest for the proposed District(s). No later than thirty (30) days before the hearing, written
notice of it shall be mailed by the applicant by first‐class mail to all fee title owners of real property
within the boundaries of the proposed District(s) and of any future inclusion area proposed in the
Letter of Interest. The notice shall also be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.
In addition to stating the date, time and location of the hearing, the mailed and published notices
shall identify the property to be served by the District(s) and generally describe the proposed
District(s) and the development it will serve. The sole purpose of the hearing will be for City
Council members and the public to provide preliminary comments in response to the Letter of
Interest to be used by the applicant in determining whether to submit a formal application and, if
so, the contents of that application. Any comment, suggestion or recommendation made by any
City Council member concerning the Letter of Interest shall not bind or otherwise obligate any City
decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the any subsequent formal
application under this Policy.
E.F. Formal Application and Service Plan Submittal: Upon taking account of staff and City Council input,
applicant may submit a formal application for consideration following the requirements specified
in the City’s District Application, including the Service Plan in which the applicant shall highlight
the substantive provisions that deviate from this Policy and the applicable Model Service Plan
attached as Exhibit “BC” or Exhibit “CD”. The formal application and application fees must be
received by the City no later than the third Tuesday of December in the preceding year for a spring
election (May) or the third Tuesday of May for a fall election (November). The City cannot commit
6
to timely processing of applications submitted after these dates for their respective elections.
F.G. Formal Staff Review: An interdisciplinary staff team will review the applicant submittal along with
any follow‐up documentation that is requested in order to assess the application according to this
Policy and other appropriate City policy. Applicants should expect several rounds of feedback and
review from City staff.
G.H. Council Finance Committee Meeting: The Council Finance Committee will review all formal
applications for a District proposals and provide feedback and recommendations.
Council Work Session Meeting (optional): Based on the magnitude and complexity of the
development project and District proposal, staff and/or the Council Finance Committee may
recommend a Council Work Session.
H.I. Public Hearing Notice: The Service Plan Applicant must cause a written notice of the public hearing
to be mailed by first‐class mail to all fee title owners of real property within the boundaries of the
proposed District(s) and of any future inclusion area proposed in the Service Plan and such notice
shall be mailed no later than thirty (30) days before the scheduled hearing date. A notice shall also
be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no later than thirty (30) days
before the scheduled hearing date. The mailed and published notices shall include the following
information:
1. A description of the general nature of the public improvements and services to be provided by
the District;
2. A description of the real property to be included in the District and in any proposed future
inclusion area, with such property being described by street address, lot and block, metes and
bounds if not subdivided, or such other method that reasonably apprises owners that their
property will or could be included in the District’s boundaries;
3. A statement of the maximum amount of property tax mill levy that can be imposed on
property in the District under the proposed Service Plan;
4. A statement that property owners desiring to have the City Council consider excluding their
properties from the District must file a petition for exclusion with the Fort Collins City Clerk’s
Office no later than ten (10) days before the scheduled hearing date in accordance with
Section 32‐1‐203(3.5) of the Colorado Revised Statutes;
5. A statement that a copy of the proposed Service Plan can be reviewed in the Fort Collins City
Clerk’s Office; and
7
6. The date, time and location of the City Council’s public hearing on the Service Plan.
I.J. Council Public Hearing: The City Council will conduct a noticed public hearing at a regular or special
Council meeting to consider resolution approval of Service Plan. This hearing will occur no later
than thirty (30) days prior to the final submittal date to the District Court to order an election. By
way of example, for a fall election City Council, which meets on the first and third Tuesday’s of the
month, must conduct the public hearing no later than the third Tuesday in August.
J.K. Proceedings at Public Hearing: The hearing shall be conducted under and in accordance with the
applicable procedures of the City Council’s adopted “Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct
of City Council Meetings and Work Sessions,” except that the order of the proceedings of the public
hearing on the service plan shall be as follows:
1. Announcement of item;
2. Consideration of any procedural issues;
3. Explanation of the application by City staff;
4. Presentation by the applicant;
5. Public testimony regarding the application;
6. Rebuttal testimony by the applicant;
7. Councilmember questions of City staff and the applicant; and
8. Motion, discussion and vote by City Council.
Section 4 –Service Plan
A. Purpose: In addition to the requirements of the Act, a Service Plan should memorialize the
understandings and agreements between the District and the City, as well as the considerations
that compelled the City to authorize the formation of the District. The Service Plan must also
include all applicable information required by the Act.
B. Compliance with Applicable Law: Any Service Plan submitted to the City for approval must comply
with all state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including the Act.
C. Model Service Plan: To clearly communicate City requirements and streamline legal review, the
City will require the use of the applicable Model Service Plan attached as Exhibit “B” or Exhibit
“C”. With justification, the City may consider deviations in the proposed Service Plan, but generally
all Service Plans should include the following:
1. Eminent Domain NOT Authorized: The Service Plan shall contain language that prohibits the
District from exercising the power of eminent domain. However, the City may choose to
8
exercise its power of eminent domain to construct public improvements within the District in
which case the District and the City will enter into an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the public improvements and funding for that use of eminent domain.
2. Maximum Mill Levy: The Service Plan shall restrict the District’s total mill levy authorization
for both debt service and operations and maintenance to fifty (50) mills, subject to adjustment
as provided below. A portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be utilized by the District to fund
operations and maintenance functions, including customary administrative expenses incurred
in operating the District such as accounting and legal expenses and otherwise complying with
applicable reporting requirements. No more than ten (10) mills may be used for operations
and maintenance (the “Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy”).
a. Increased mill levies may be considered for Districts that are predominately commercial
in use, at the sole discretion of the City Council.
b. The Maximum Mill Levy may be adjustable from the base year of the District as provided
for in the Model Service Plan, so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues
generated by the District’s mill levy, as adjusted, for changes occurring after the base year,
are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of the changes.
3. Debt Term Limit: A District shall be allowed no more than forty (40) years for the levy and
collection of taxes used to service debt unless a majority of the Board of Directors of the
District imposing the mill levy are residents of such District and have voted in favor of a
refunding of a part or all of the Debt and such refunding is for one or more of the purposes
authorized in C.R.S. Section 11‐56‐104.
4. District Dissolution: Perpetual Districts shall not be allowed except in cases where ongoing
operations and maintenance are required. Except where ongoing operations and maintenance
has been authorized, a District must be dissolved as soon as practical upon:
a. The payment of all debt and obligations; and
b. The completion of District development activity.
In addition, Districts shall have no more than three years from approval of the Service Plan to
secure City Council approval by resolution of an intergovernmental agreement and/or a
development agreement documenting the public benefits described in the Service Plan. Staff
will inform City Council, in writing, of any Districts that have not obtained this approval ninety
(90) days in advance of the expiration of the three‐year period. This written notice will provide
a status update on the Districts progress towards obtaining Council approval and the other
activities of the Districts.
5. District Fees: Impact fees, development fees, service fees, and any other fees must be
identified with particularity in the District Service Plan. Impact and development fees must not
be levied or collected against the end user – i.e., residents and/or non‐developer owners.
9
6. Notice Requirements: The Service Plan shall require that the District use reasonable efforts to
assure that all developers of the property located within the District provide written notice to
all purchasers of property in the District regarding the District’s existing mill levies, its
maximum debt mill levy, as well as a general description of the District’s authority to impose
and collect rates, fees, tolls and charges. The form of notice shall be filed with the City prior to
the initial issuance of the debt of the District imposing the mill levy and shall be substantially
in the form of Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
7. Annual Report: The Service Plan must obligate the District to file an annual report not later
than September 1 of each year with the City Clerk for the year ending the preceding December
31, the requirements of which may be waived in whole or in part by the City Manager. Details
of the Annual Report are included in the Model Service Plan.
D. Service Plan Requirements: In additional to all other information required in a Service Plan by the
Act, a Service Plan must include the following:
1. Financial Plan: The Service Plan must include debt and operating financial projections prepared
by an investment banking firm or financial advisor qualified to make such projections. The
financial firm must be listed in the Bond Buyers Marketplace or, in the City’s sole discretion,
other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections. The Financial Plan must
include debt issuance and service schedules and calculations establishing the District’s
projected maximum debt capacity (the “Total Debt Limitation”) based on assumptions of: (i)
Projected Interest Rate on the debt to be issued; (ii) Projected Assessed Valuation of the
property within the District; and (iii) Projected Rate of Absorption of the assessed valuation
within the District. These assumptions must use market‐based, market comparable valuation
and absorption data and may use an annual inflation rate of three percent (3%) or the
Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12‐month period for the Denver‐Boulder‐Greeley
statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, whichever is lesser.
a. Total Debt Limitation: The total debt authorized in the Service Plan must not exceed 100%
of the projected maximum debt capacity as shown in the Financial Plan.
b. Administrative, Operational and Maintenance Costs: The Financial Plan must also include
foreseeable administrative, operational and maintenance costs.
2. Public Improvements and Estimated Costs: Every Service Plan must include, in addition to all
materials, plans and reports required by the Act, a summary of public improvements to be
constructed and/or installed by the district (the “Public Improvements”). The description of
these Public Improvements must include, at a minimum:
10
1. A map or maps, and construction drawings of such a scale, detail and size as required
by the Planning Department, providing an illustration of public improvements
proposed to be built, acquired or financed by the District;
2. A written narrative and description of the public improvements; and
3. A general description of the District’s proposed role with regard to the same.
Due to their preliminary nature, the Service Plan must indicate that the City’s approval of the
Public Improvements shall not bind the City, its boards and commissions, and City Council in
any way relating to the review and consideration of land use applications within the District.
3. Intergovernmental Agreement: Any intergovernmental agreement which is required or known
at the time of formation of the District to likely be required, to fulfill the purposes of the
District, must be described in the Service Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service
Plan must provide that execution of intergovernmental agreements which are likely to cause
substantial increase in the District’s budget and are not described in the Service Plan will
require the prior approval of City Council.
4. Extraterritorial Service Agreement: The Service Plan must describe any planned extraterritorial
service agreement. The Service Plan must provide that any extraterritorial service agreement
by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require prior approval of City
Council.
Section 5 – Regional Improvements
A. Purpose: A Service Plan may include a section addressing the planning, design, acquisition,
funding, construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment of Regional Improvements.
Such section is intended to ensure that the privately‐owned properties to be developed in a District
that benefit from the Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs.
B. Eligible Improvements: The City, to facilitate transparency, will include a list or exhibit in any
Service Plan including a Regional Improvements section that clearly identifies the improvements
to be funded, in part or whole, by a Regional Mill to be levied by the District. In selecting
improvements to be included in a Service Plan the City will apply the following standards:
1. Benefit to End User – Regional Improvements should have a clear benefit to the private‐
owned properties funding the Regional Mill Levy. The City may establish this connection either
through previous identification of the infrastructure need and/or through a technical analysis,
such as a traffic impact analysis.
2. Specificity – When possible, the City should include as much specificity about the Regional
Improvements to be included in a Service Plan as possible, while noting that any details are
preliminary and may be subject to change as planning, design, acquisition, funding,
11
construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment of the Regional Improvements
occurs.
3. No Other Funding Exists – The City will exclude improvements, either in part or whole, for
which funding mechanisms exists to support the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment. By way of example, the City
collects Capital Expansion Fees to support street oversizing, however, several bridge structures
necessary to facilitate grade separated crossings of railroad infrastructure were not included
in the calculation of these Fees; therefore, the bridges would be and eligible Regional
Improvement, where the road surface itself would not.
Section 5 – Fees
A. No request to create a Metro District shall proceed until the fees set forth herein are paid when
required. All checks are to be made payable to the City of Fort Collins and sent to the Economic
Health Office.
1. Letter of Interesnt Submittal Fee: A Letter of Interesnt is to be submitted to the City’s Economic
Health Office and a non‐refundable $2,500 fee shall be paid at the time of submittal of the
Letter.
2. Application Fee: An application along with a draft Service Plan (based on the Model Service
Plan) is to be submitted to the City’s Economic Health Office and a $7,500 non‐refundable fee
along with a $7,500 deposit towards the City’s other expenses shall be paid at the time of
submittal of the Application and draft Service Plan.
3. Annual Fee: Each District shall pay an annual fee for the City’s on‐going monitoring of each
Metro District. This annual fee shall be $500 or if multiple Districts exist serving a single project,
then the annual fee shall be $500 plus $250 for each additional District beyond the first (e.g.,
the annual fee for Consolidated ABC Metro Districts 1 to 7 shall be $500 plus $250 times six or
$2,000).
4. Non‐Model Service Plan Fee: A District proposal requesting a substantial deviation from this
Policy or the applicable Model Service Plan, shall pay an additional non‐refundable fee of
$5,000 at the time of submitting its application; the City shall in its sole and reasonable
discretion determine if a draft Service Plan proposes a substantial deviation from this Policy
or the applicable Model Service Plan.
5. Other Expenses: If the deposits paid in subsections 2 and 6 are not sufficient to cover all the
City’s other expenses, the applicant for a District shall pay all reasonable consultant, legal, and
other fees and expenses incurred by the City in the process of reviewing the draft Service Plan
or amended Service Plan prior to adoption, documents related to a bond issue and such other
expenses as may be necessary for the City to incur to interface with the District. All such fees
and expenses shall be paid within 30 days of receipt of an invoice for these additional fees and
expenses.
12
6. Service Plan Amendment Fee: If a proposed amendment to a Service Plan is submitted to the
City’s Economic Health Office, it should be submitted with a non‐refundable $2,500 fee along
with a $2,500 deposit towards the City’s other expenses and shall be paid at the time of
submittal of the application and draft amended Service Plan.
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM
DATE:November 30, 2020
TO:Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
THRU:Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Kelly DiMartino, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation
Paul Sizemore, Interim Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Director
FROM:Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager
RE: November 24, 2020 Work Session Summary –Metro District Evaluation
System Update
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Wade Troxell, Mayor Pro-Tem Kristin Stephens, Councilmember Ross
Cunniff, Councilmember Ken Summers, Councilmember Emily Gorgol, Councilmember Julie
Pignataro, Councilmember Susan Gutowsky, all virtually via Zoom.
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Cameron Gloss, Paul Sizemore
Discussion Summary:
Council’s discussion ranged across several values, perspectives, and concerns. Specific items
included:
x Whatever system is ultimately chosen needs to be more predictable for developers and
the community.
x The points system needs more refinement and clarity as to how it will be applied. Just
achieving a certain number of points should not automatically result in Metro District
approval.
x Consideration should be given to adjusting the mill levy limit.
x Benefits delivered to Metro District residents should be greater or equal to the costs they
are bearing in increased property taxes.
x Benefits need to truly extraordinary when talking about affordable housing.
x Developers need to be held accountable to agreements made under a Metro District
approval.
x More needs to be done to enhance transparency for home buyers and the manner in
which District governance is applied.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning, Development & Transportation
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6134 - fax
November 24, 2020 Council Work Session Summary Page 2
Metro District Evaluation Summary Update
x Any affordable housing approved through the Metro District process should be deed
restricted in perpetuity.
x Metro districts may not be the appropriate tool to provide affordable housing since it can
compete with other funding mechanisms.
x Walkable communities should be considered as part of ‘community livability’.
Council Direction:
City Council was supportive of the general concepts presented and of staff moving forward with
a more refined residential metro district evaluation system. The focus on the next version of the
system should be based on metro districts that are not merely mediocre, but clearly
demonstrate excellence. Great care needs to be exercised with the weighting of criteria as a
way to achieve outcomes that meet our policy objectives.
Generally, Council asked staff to ‘tighten things up’ from both the perspective of providing more
clarity about District governance and transparency that respond to expressed consumer
concerns, and to be more intentional on how the system relates to CDBG and other housing
funding sources.
It was agreed that there will likely be the need to be an extension to the moratorium for some
period of time prior to bringing a more refined evaluation system back to Council for its
consideration.
February 16, 2021
Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers and City Leaders:
The Affordable Housing Board is pleased to provide a letter of support for the proposed Metro
District requirements as proposed by Cameron Gloss at our 02/04/21 Board Meeting. The
Affordable Housing Board supports the concept of making some form of affordable housing a
mandatory requirement for any Metro District plan. The Board also supports the concept of
flexibility in how each proposal can achieve the affordable housing requirements. The Board
also wants to make clear that the Metro District tool should be utilized to help address the
overall housing supply and should support tools that not only encourage the development of
qualified affordable rental and home ownership housing but also to create a greater diversity of
housing types that provide improved choice within the market. By expanding the options to
achieve the mandatory point threshold, developers can utilize a variety of tools and resources
to meet the goal. This flexibility will lessen the pressure on the limited resources that are
available to build qualified affordable rental housing across the community.
The Board would like to express support for a point system that encourages the development
of Accessory Dwelling Units as well as smaller and more diverse housing types (currently
options 2.B and 4). The point system should allow for projects to meet the threshold by
complying with these criteria.
These housing options can benefit the overall health of our housing supply and seem an
appropriate option that the City of Fort Collins can and should be encouraging in addition to
qualified affordable housing.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
On behalf of the Affordable Housing Board,
Kristin Fritz
Board Chairperson
ATTACHMENT 5
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
February 4, 2021, 4:00-6:00pm
Remote/Online via Zoom due to COVID-19
2/4/2021 – MINUTES Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER:4:02
2. ROLL CALL
x Board Members Present: Kristin Fritz, Jen Bray, John Singleton, Bob Pawlikowski, Tatiana
Zentner, Diane Cohn, Daphne Bear
x Board Members Absent: None
x Staff Members Present: Cameron Gloss, Ingrid Decker, Meaghan Overton, Lindsay Ex, Sue
Beck-Ferkiss, Brittany Depew
x Community Members: Marilyn Heller
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
x Marilyn Heller – postponed League of Women Voters affordable housing panel, now scheduled
for Monday, April 12, 2021 via Zoom. County Commissioner John Kefalas will be speaking,
along with Councilmember Emily Gorgol, and City staff members JC Ward and Ryan Mounce.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jen moved to approve January minutes.
John seconded. Approved 7-0.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Legal Issues Related to Boards and Commissions – Ingrid Decker
City Attorney Carrie Daggett’s office has 14 attorneys, 3 paralegals, 4 administrative support staff.
Fort Collins is a Home Rule City, City charter was voter approved as local “constitution,” and laws
enacted by City Council. Charter describes how boards can be established and what they can/can’t
do. Boards and Commissions Manual is official set of policies and procedures. Some boards have
quasi-judicial role, but most are advisory. Email can be used to share information, but discussions
among multiple board members should only take place at official public meetings. Conflicts of
interest occur when making decisions around funding, if any board member has a financial or
personal interest in the outcome. If you or a relative have a conflict of interest, you cannot vote on
that matter and the conflict must be disclosed.
Discussion:
x If a board member’s organization is applying for funding, and they are not directly impacted
by the outcome, there may still be a perceived conflict or concern about bias in decision-
making.
ATTACHMENT 6
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
2/4/2021 – MINUTES Page 2
x A true conflict of interest must be disclosed; a perceived conflict or discomfort does not
require disclosure – that person can simply recuse.
x AHB does not only recommend expenditure of Affordable Housing Fund, but other fund
sources as well – this should be updated in the new proposed language.
B. Residential Metro District Evaluation Process, Cameron Gloss
This project started with Economic Health and has moved to Planning & Development. Tasked with
creating evaluation system for Metro Districts. Metro Districts are quasi-governmental and have the
authority to issue tax exempt bonds. Public infrastructure can be financed over time at tax-exempt
interest rates. Must provide extraordinary community benefit. Trying to add objectivity and rigor to
current process. Proposals are assigned points based on various criteria – affordable rental housing,
attainable housing, unit size, accessory dwelling units, higher efficiency, etc. Must achieve at least 5
points of attainable or affordable housing and can choose from the list how to get there. Approval
process: public benefits agreement, development agreement, building permit review, certificate of
occupation only once criteria are met.
Discussion:
x This has evolved well since first brought to AHB.
x Developers could achieve requirement by offering attainable housing, not strictly affordable,
which helps reserve some resources for those developing housing for 60% AMI and below.
x Average resident may not understand funding mechanisms so this may need to be explained
clearly and simply.
x Relying on data and professional judgment of utilities staff for options to increase efficiency
for cost savings.
x Varying opinions on how possible these goals are to reach for developers.
x Some concern when requirements are too specific and not flexible based on current
economic circumstances.
x Board interest in trial period with current requirements and would be interested in revisiting in
1-2 years to assess feasibility and flexibility.
x Many metro districts are higher-end and amenity-driven, fewer are starter homes, but some
do use metro districts to fund street infrastructure and other basic amenities.
x Recommendation from AHB: support metro districts with affordable/attainable housing
requirements and would like flexibility in those requirements. Expressed concern regarding
inherent competition with already competitive funding sources for affordable housing.
o Nuanced enough that AHB might want to consider a memo to Council with more
detail.
o Deadline for memo would be around February 16 to be included in Cameron’s
Council materials.
o Kristin will create draft memo to share with board members for additions/edits.
Diane moved that AHB is generally in agreement with affordable and
attainable housing requirements presented here and also expressed some concern
that the board will share in a memo to Council. John seconded. Approved 7-0-0.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
2/4/2021 – MINUTES Page 3
C. Housing Strategic Plan, Lindsay Ex and Meaghan Overton
Housing Strategic Plan goes to Council for first reading on February 16. Currently at step 7: consider
adoption after finishing step 6: strategies to outcomes. Since the draft plan was released, received
137 public comments, visited with multiple committees, board and other groups. Changes made to
the plan: added storytelling, emphasized supportive services, increased linkage between strategies
and outcomes, letters from leadership, recognition of business implementation, updated graphic to
illustrate supply gap, enhanced connections to existing goals and strategies, and additional updates
to the guiding principles. After adoption, implementation will begin in spring.
Discussion:
x Did well engaging with Affordable Housing Board throughout this process.
x Appreciate all the hard work that has gone into the plan.
x This plan separates out implementation, which is different than other plans.
x First reading is February 16, second reading is March 2.
Bob moved to recommend that the Housing Strategic Plan be adopted by Council.
Tatiana seconded. Approved 7-0-0
7. OTHER BUSINESS
a)City Council Six-Month Planning Calendar
x February 16 first reading – Housing Strategic Plan
x Consideration of Phase 1 of Land Use Code
b)Council Comments
c)Review 2020 Work Plan
d)Update on Affordable Housing Projects
e)Future AHB Meetings Agenda
x April’s meeting will be devoted to ranking housing applicants from the competitive process.
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
a) Liaison Reports
x Jen will be attending Fort Collins Board of Realtors meeting next week to discuss new
Hughes Stadium plan
10. ADJOURNMENT:6:02
Economic Health Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 – fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19th , 2021
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager;
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
FROM: Connor Barry, Chair – Economic Advisory Commission;
Renee Walkup, Vice-Chair – Economic Advisory Commission; and
Members, Economic Advisory Commission for 2021
RE: REVISED RESIDENTIAL METRO DISTRICT EVALUATION PROCESS
On February 17th, 2021, the Commission heard a presentation from Cameron Gloss on proposed revisions to the
framework used to evaluate metro districts. The new framework would introduce a scoring system and menu of
options from which developers could select when applying for a metro district with the goal of clearly defining
“extraordinary benefits”. After discussion, the Commission voted that we recommend that City Council adopt
this change to evaluation criteria for metro districts.
Summary and Discussion:
The Commission found the proposed evaluation criteria acceptable and aligned with broader goals for the city,
such as the Housing Strategic Plan, Our Climate Future, and City Plan
While supportive, several members of the Commission noted provisions concerning affordable housing that
might impact implementation, outcomes and may be considered for further review as a part of the 2-year
reevaluation process proposed by city staff:
• Affordable housing supply requirements
o Does the mandate for minimum 10% affordable housing provide sufficient incentive for
developers to pursue this objective? Feedback from the developer community suggests that this
level of “effective subsidy” may be too high for them to consider.
Water conservation and cost:
o It was noted that the cost of water in proposed future metro district locations is likely to be above
average. These additional costs could potentially undercut the success of providing affordable
housing.
o Water conservation has historically been a challenging goal to address. In order to strengthen this
incentive it was suggested that the City could investigate requiring the following:
1. Requiring native, drought resistant plants and low water grasses. Hardscaping,
xeriscaping and increased use of mulch and rocks.
2. Using native ground cover in open and transitional spaces.
3. Low flow shower heads and faucets.
ATTACHMENT 7
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
February 18, 2021, 5:30-7:30 p.m.
online via Zoom
02/18 /2021 – MINUTES Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
• Board Members Present: Kent Bruxvoort (Chairperson), Greg Steed (Vice
Chairperson), Michael C. Brown, Jr., Cibi Vishnu Chinnasamy, Tyler Eldridge, Paul
Herman, Randy Kenyon, Phyllis Ortman, John Primsky, Jason Tarry
• Staff Members Present: Theresa Connor, Matt Fater, Katherine Martinez, John Song,
Meagan Smith, Donnie Dustin, Jill Oropeza, Tim McCollough, Ryan Mounce, Mariel
Miller, Liesel Hans, Matt Zoccali, Randy Kenyon
• Members of the Public: Rob Graves, Rich S.
3. AGENDA REVIEW
None
4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
None
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Bruxvoort asked for comments on the January minutes.
Board Member Brown moved to approve the January 21, 2021 minutes with minor
revisions noted.
Board Member Herman seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 9-0, with one abstention by Board Member
Chinnasamy due to his absence at the January meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Staff Reports
(Attachments available upon request)
i. Preliminary 2020 Year-End Financial Report
(meeting packet only; no presentation) No discussion
ii. Water Resources Monthly Report
(meeting packet only; no presentation) No discussion
ATTACHMENT 8
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /2021 – MINUTES Page 2
iii. Memo: Water Shortage Evaluation and Response Planning Efforts to
Date (meeting packet only; no presentation) No discussion
iv. Halligan Water Supply Project Year-in-Review Update
(meeting packet only; no presentation; staff available for questions)
No discussion. Special Projects Manager Eileen Dornfest commented that
the project progressed well in 2020, has not been affected by the pandemic,
and the design process is going well. She pointed out that the schedule has
been updated to reflect uncertainty in the permitting tasks, and the schedule
is now presented as a range of timeframes.
b. Regular Items
(Attachments available upon request)
i. Raw Water Rental Rates and Delivery Charges
Water Resources Engineer II Meagan Smith provided a summary of the raw
water rental program, proposed formula for calculating rental rates and
delivery charges, and proposed rates. This agenda item is scheduled for first
reading on the consent agenda for the March 2 City Council meeting. This
item shifted from an annual review with Water Board and Council approval to
an every-three-years review starting in 2018.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics
including feedback from raw water customers on the proposal; curiosity about
the biggest customer (staff is restricted from sharing customers’ identities and
will consult City Attorney’s Office on confidentiality requirement); question on
average amount of raw water rented (20,000 acre-feet) and average amount
of raw water that is treated (25,000 af); lower rental sales expected this year
due to wildfire.
Board Member Brown moved to that Water Board recommend City
Council adopt the proposed formulas for calculating rental rates and delivery
charges for Fort Collins Utilities raw water supplies, as well as the proposed
rental rate and delivery charge for fully consumable water for 2021 through
March 2024.
Board Member Ortman seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /2021 – MINUTES Page 3
ii. Watershed Fire Recovery Intergovernmental Agreement
and Appropriation
Water Quality Services Manager Jill Oropeza provided a summary of the
Cameron Peak Fire post-fire watershed recovery activities, including a brief
review of a draft intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the City of Greeley
and Larimer County that outlines cost-sharing agreements as well as the
structure of an appropriation to secure funds for watershed recovery projects
and water treatment operations. City Council will consider this agenda item
on March 16.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics
including Horsetooth Outlet Project surplus (returns to general fund);
reserves funding; efficiencies; amount of appropriation request; wildfire
areas; mulching; recovery timeline.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommends City
Council approve of the City of Fort Collins entering into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for cost-sharing of post-wildfire
watershed recovery work.
Board Member Eldridge seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0.
Board Member Tarry moved that the Water Board recommends City
Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $5 million, which will be
used on watershed restoration treatments and operations costs associated
with treating fire-impacted water supplies in 2021.
Board Member Ortman seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
iii. 2021 Utilities Locating Supplemental Resources
Utilities Deputy Director - Light & Power Tim McCollough provided a
summary of the appropriation request. The current demands on the
department exceed the available resources, in part due to Fort Collins
Connexion construction. Excavators and engineering firms are starting to see
delays in the department’s ability to provide timely locates in the Fort Collins
jurisdiction. Staff recommends bringing forward in March an off-cycle
appropriation to City Council of $500,000 funded from reserves to address
resource limitations in the Utility Locates division.
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /2021 – MINUTES Page 4
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics
including funding sources and equitable allocation; Utilities service area and
city limits (service area goes beyond city limits into Growth Management
Area); 2018 locating law and subsequent increased engineering locate
requests; the buildout and undergrounding of a new utility, Fort Collins
Connexion, over three years compared to half the city’s Light & Power
undergrounding over 25 years starting in the 1980s; actual number of locate
requests was close to expected but length and effort required for each was
greater than expected.
Board Member Herman moved that the Water Board recommends City
Council support the off-cycle locates appropriation as proposed by staff.
Board Member Chinnasamy seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
iv. Recommendation to City Council Regarding an Amendment to the
Metro District Evaluation Process
City Planner Ryan Mounce summarized the recommendation. On June 16,
City Council approved a six-month moratorium on new metro district
applications and directed staff to develop possible changes to the Metro
District policy that addresses issues raised by Council and citizens, and that
fulfill established City goals. Staff proposes a performance points system,
including a menu of options, with respect to housing attainability, energy and
water efficiency and neighborhood livability attributes for each residential
Metro District. The proposed system is intended to provide metrics that
further define “extraordinary public benefits” as found in the current policy. Of
particular interest is the Water Board’s perspective on the water conservation
components described within the evaluation system.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on and inquired about various related topics
including whether metro districts are created on the backs of developers
(metro districts have the ability to issue debt to pay for infrastructure; future
property owners pay); whether voters have a say on metro district formation
and tax liability (2018 Council decision based on extraordinary community
benefits); fire suppression systems; placing an additional burden on top of
cost effective homes with these requirements seems counterintuitive; some
of these topics have come up in focus group discussions; the issue is more
complex than the metrics indicate, and seem to have conflicting objectives,
i.e. ratchet up cost to implement the tool to create more affordable housing.
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /2021 – MINUTES Page 5
Chairperson Bruxvoort moved that the Water Board recommend City
Council amend the Metro District policy and adopt the water conservation
metrics as described in the proposed Residential Metro Districts Evaluation
system.
Vice Chairperson Steed seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
None
8. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Draft Memo to Council: Reimagine Boards and Commissions Project
Board members discussed the draft memo, which details their opinions on the
project and recommendations to Council regarding the proposed changes,
namely the number of Water Board members. They agreed unanimously via
straw poll to minor revisions and to send the memo to Council.
9. ADJOURNMENT
7:51 p.m.
These minutes were approved by Chairperson Kent Bruxvoort and the Water Board on
March 18, 2021.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
March 17, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting Via Zoom
3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 1
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Indy Hart
Vice Chair:
Council Liaison:
Nathalie Rachline
Kristin Stephens
Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Indy Hart, Chair
Nathalie Rachline, Vice Chair
Jerry Gavaldon
York
Cari Brown
Rob Owens
Diego Lopez
Kevin Borchert (arrived late)
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Matt Liberati
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Cameron Gloss
PUBLIC PRESENT:
None
3. AGENDA REVIEW
Iverson stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 2021
Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by York, to approve the February 2021 minutes as
corrected. The motion was adopted unanimously.
ATTACHMENT 9
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 2
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Chair and Vice Chair Elections – Action Item – All
Chair Hart made a motion, seconded by Brown, to nominate Rachline as Chair.
Rachline stated she would be interested in the position.
York made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to close the nominations for Chair.
Rachline commented on the importance of getting transportation to the top of the
priority list given the upcoming changes to the Council make-up.
Rachline made a motion, seconded by Chair Hart, to nominate Brown for Vice Chair.
Brown stated she would be interested in the position.
Gavaldon nominated York for Vice Chair.
York stated he would prefer Brown take the position if she is interested.
Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by Owens, to close the nominations for Vice
Chair.
Members agreed Chair Hart should finish out this meeting as Chair.
Chair Hart congratulated Rachline and Brown on their nominations.
b. Transportation Board Recommendations to City Council on a Proposed
Residential Metro District Evaluation System – Action Item – Cameron Gloss
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, stated staff has been going through a process
for about two years to develop a new evaluation system for residential metro districts.
He noted the City lifted a prohibition on residential metro districts in 2018. He
outlined the characteristics of metro districts noting they are quasi-governmental
entities permitted by state law and their primary role is to build and provide operations
and maintenance for infrastructure. Gloss stated the City opted to allow residential
metro districts contingent upon the district providing extraordinary public benefits that
align with adopted City policy.
Gloss stated a district service plan is the official document that creates a district, and
that approval is solely at the discretion of City Council. He outlined the benefits of
creating a metro district stating they can finance development of infrastructure at tax
exempt interest rates through bonds and the cost can be spread over time. The
beneficiaries are the residents of the district itself.
Gloss provided more detail on the City’s adopted metro district policy which allows for
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 3
a cap on the amount of indebtedness and a minimum debt authorization of $7 million.
Additionally, he noted the City’s policy prohibits the use of eminent domain and Fort
Collins is the only community in Colorado that has the public benefit criterion for
approval.
Gloss outlined the adopted plans that are being used to measure extraordinary
benefit, including those related water efficiency and energy policy. He stated there
are three components to the evaluation system: housing, neighborhood livability, and
energy and water conservation, and he noted categories are weighted with greater
emphasis on areas that will reduce the cost burden to residents as property owners
will pay additional property tax that is dedicated to retiring the bonds.
Gloss provided additional detail on the evaluation system components, specifically
housing affordability.
Chair Hart requested the definition of AMI. Gloss replied it is area median income.
Chair Hart stated Gavaldon has expressed concern in the group chat about metro
districts surprising homeowners with the high taxes and has suggested 15%
affordability could be required to make the benefit extraordinary. Gloss replied
consumer protection has been the basis of some staff recommendations and he will
provide additional detail at the end of the presentation.
Gloss discussed the need for middle-sized housing in the community and further
detailed water conservation and energy efficiency components. Regarding
neighborhood livability, Gloss stated there are four major categories: transportation
and transit, neighborhood amenities, the natural environment, and health, culture,
and education. He stated the transportation and transit category includes allotting
points for the key provisions of an off-site bicycle or pedestrian recreational trail that
connects to the public system, improvements to the street to increase the quality of
the bicycle and pedestrian network, having level 3 charging stations for electric
vehicles, and having access to on-site services, among others.
Brown asked what would prevent a developer from putting in an off-site bicycle trail
connection or community market and not maintaining it or letting it fail. Gloss replied
there are enforcement mechanisms for all improvements and metro district include
operations and maintenance funding. Regarding a failed essential neighborhood
service, Gloss replied he would believe the metro district would need to meet its
minimum points total in another way. He noted the points would need to be met in
perpetuity.
Gloss noted Fort Collins’ development standards are high and metro districts require
those standards to be even higher.
York stated it seems five points is relatively easy to acquire and asked about the
justification for that number. Gloss replied there is a desire to not stack the metro
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 4
districts with so many amenities that lead to exceptionally expensive housing without
the benefits to the consumer in terms of efficiency, which is why the housing and
efficiency components are more heavily weighted.
York asked if metro districts need five points in each of the component areas or five
points total. Gloss replied metro districts need five points within neighborhood
livability, ten points for water efficiency, a to be determined amount for energy
conservation, and five points for housing. He commented on the goal of finding a
balance that benefits the consumer and provides a fair and equitable system for
developers.
(**Secretary’s Note: Kevin Borchert joined the meeting at this point.)
Gloss commented on the emphasis on improving the transparency for purchasers
citing recent issues with metro districts in the Denver area. He noted a disclosure in
the title work would be required for all properties within a metro district and that
disclosure would spell out basic parameters including the amount of indebtedness
that can be incurred, what the average property tax would be based on the assessed
value, and a comparison of a property within the district versus one not in a district.
Chair Hart requested additional information regarding transparency for consumers
noting Gavaldon has expressed concern realtors have not done a good job in sharing
details to buyers regarding metro district tax increases. Gloss replied a comparison
of property taxes showing their increase over time for a metro district will be helpful
for consumers. He noted it would be difficult to ensure realtors provide accurate
information.
Gavaldon expressed concern the metro district taxes will price out buyers and he
commented on ensuring realtors are transparent with buyers.
Rachline stated she would like to have the Transportation Plan referenced specifically
as are other plans. She also expressed concern the impact of transportation and
transit on any development is underrepresented with this system.
Brown commented on an acquaintance in another city who had to move due to
unexpected increasing metro district costs.
Chair Hart expressed disappointment about the concept in general stating it appears
metro districts hide financial information that will negatively affect the consumer in the
future with unexpected costs. He stated he would like to see a better balance
between benefits to developers and consumers. He stated it should be difficult for
developers to get large incentives and it should not be difficult for the consumer to
understand how expensive it will be for them to live in a place that has extra
amenities.
York asked if metro districts can use extra points in one category to offset lacking
points in another category. Gloss replied the system is designed such that the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 5
minimum number of points within each category is required and no bonus points can
be shared between categories.
York encouraged making that information clearer at the beginning of the presentation.
He asked about the disclosure and title work noting it may be too late for the
consumer to find this information in title work at closing. Gloss replied that was
discussed as being an issue. Gavaldon commented on the typical real estate
transaction process noting there is no provision for metro districts to get information
out to potential buyers. He stated he has been encouraging realtors to include a
separate contract deadline for metro district documents that would occur similarly to
HOA documents early enough in the process to allow a buyer to terminate the
contract.
Chair Hart asked if there is any incentive for developers to go above the minimum
number of points. Gloss replied in the negative but noted any metro district approval
remains at the discretion of Council.
Chair Hart suggested using statements such as ‘protect the consumer’ indicates the
activity or idea is something from which the consumer needs to be protected;
therefore, it may not necessarily be safe for consumers.
Rachline asked about the process moving forward given the presentation before
Council was postponed, and whether Boards and Commissions input will be taken
into account. Gloss replied this project will be going before Council on April 20th and
the Planning and Zoning Board will entertain a revised proposal on April 1st with the
main change being in the energy conservation metrics. The Energy Board will be
considering those revisions on April 8th. Gloss stated staff has been providing
minutes of all Boards and Commissions meetings to Council and some Boards have
elected to write a summary letter.
Rachline asked if any changes to the presentation based on the Board’s concerns
related to the lack of emphasis on transit and transportation will be made. Gloss
replied specific comments related to changes would be helpful.
Rachline asked if the Board wanted to make a formal motion to provide a
recommendation regarding the lack of focus on transit and transportation in the
policy.
Chair Hart suggested various transportation and transit related items that could be
included in the evaluation system including clearly defining bike and walk friendly
street design and having metro districts expand on that, and having a recreational
trail within the limits of the metro district.
Gloss stated the City’s level of service standards already require on-site trails and
other types of pedestrian systems and the hope is for metro district projects to go
above and beyond the standards.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 6
Gavaldon asked if trails in a metro district would be open to the public. Gloss replied
trails are typically located in dedicated public access easements.
York suggested the recreational trail could be identified as a human-powered
transportation trail rather than solely a recreational trail, or that additional human-
powered transportation trails could be added as an extraordinary benefit. He stated
he would be opposed to private bus systems and suggested a metro district could
buy into the Transfort system and include that as an extraordinary benefit. Gloss
noted any development regardless of metro district status would be required to
provide transit stops and connectivity to that stop through the development.
York asked if it would be possible for a development to have a dedicated bus service
provided through Transfort. Gloss replied that would need to be a question for
Transfort but noted large-scale infrastructure improvements cannot fit within this type
of a system.
Rachline expressed concern those issues would never be addressed and stated
there must be a way to define objectives related to livability and extraordinary
benefits. She stated the policy must include accessibility to transit and she
commented on the need to include additional focus on transit in the policy.
Gloss noted the Transportation Master Plan outlines transit routes and the City has
the ability to require developers to provide public improvements such as transit stops
and connections thereto if the development is on an existing or proposed transit
route.
Iverson stated he could work with Gloss on language around human-powered off-
street transportation trails. He noted transit is primarily funded by the general fund
from the City side and CSU pays the City to run their transit system. He concurred
with Gloss’ description of developments being required to provide transit stops.
Chair Hart suggested the language related to the expansion of adjacent natural
habitats could also be applied to transit and transportation.
Owens noted walkable streets are only helpful in reducing vehicle miles travelled if
there are amenities within walking distance and he asked how zoning plays a role if a
development is solely residential. Gloss replied City Plan aims to have services near
where people live and work; however, it is easier to provide the opportunity to provide
neighborhood center amenities than to mandate what shall be provided. He also
commented on the trend toward extremely large supermarkets.
Chair Hart commented on the importance of understanding metro districts can
provide an opportunity embrace challenge.
Owens asked how density is considered. Gloss replied Fort Collins was one of the
first cities in the United States to establish minimum density requirements in
developing areas; however, no one wants that density near them, which is a
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 7
challenge. He noted there would be a great deal of efficiency in constructing
buildings taller than five stories in the downtown area; however, it is not cost effective
for developers to do so.
Chair Hart commented on the need for consumers to embrace the challenge that
comes with density in order to have affordability.
Gloss requested the Board be as specific as possible with comments it would like
forwarded to Council.
Chair Hart stated this is a great opportunity for the Board to summarize
transportation-related suggestions to be encapsulated in the metro district policy and
therefore drive forward standards.
York stated this is a good opportunity for Council to weigh in on Transfort developing
a plan on how it can incorporate money coming from a metro district to help with
routes and service expansion.
Chair Hart commented on incorporating existing trails through metro district areas.
Iverson replied the Code already requires a developer to build their part of a trail, or
at least set aside land, if the regional trail system plan shows a trail going through or
adjacent to any development site. He discussed the example of Montava’s trail
amenities.
Chair Hart commented on providing facilities or areas for people who are using
alternate modes of transportation to be able to do something. Gloss suggested the
possibility of including a catch-all category of ‘general transportation innovation’ that
would allow for points to be allotted for attributes that are not specifically listed.
Lopez discussed ‘future-proofing’ for charging stations.
Gavaldon asked if private streets would be allowed in metro districts. Gloss replied if
they were part of a district, they would need to be maintained by the metro district.
He noted level of service standards are required to be met for all modes of
transportation.
Gavaldon noted private streets may not be conducive to bike and walk-friendly design
and if metro districts would lose a point if they use private streets. Gloss replied the
intention is that the street design will surpass the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards cross sections and that all modes of transportation on all streets meet the
level of service standards.
Lopez requested assurance equity as a whole is being addressed, both for low-
income and mobility-challenged individuals. Gloss replied ADA standards must be
met.
Lopez suggested anything dealing with resiliency could be a good inclusion and
asked how road maintenance is addressed. Gloss replied metro districts ensure road
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 8
maintenance for their duration. He also noted all electric service is undergrounded
and bicycle parking is already required. He commented on the requirements for
energy and water conservation which aim to reduce costs for the consumer while
also challenging the thinking about water use moving into the future. He stated metro
districts likely address resiliency better than standard developments.
Chair Hart commented on the possibility of providing off-street access to schools.
York suggested that could be included for all types of public amenities.
Chair Hart stated he would like the public amenities to be more specific to include
things like libraries and shared community spaces. Gloss noted those items may
need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and suggested they be included in
that ‘transportation innovation’ category.
York summarized the Board’s suggestions and comments.
Owens reiterated transportation relates to energy savings and noted a metro district
can meet the criteria without any transportation items being addressed. Chair Hart
commented on energy savings being examined from the global impact level rather
than just the consumer’s pocketbook level.
York stated he is comfortable with staff taking the Board’s comments to Council
without the formation of an official memo. Gavaldon and Rachline agreed.
Gloss reiterated the Board provided a greater degree of specificity during the
discussion which will aid in staff moving this forward to Council.
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Gavaldon reported on a conversation with Councilmember Gutowsky during which she
mentioned wanting to listen to and assist the Board assuming she is successful in her
election bid. He also commended the snow removal from the recent storm but noted some
sidewalks have yet to be cleared.
Chair Hart commended the City’s effort with snow removal and the reliability of City utilities.
York also commended the City’s snow plowing and removal efforts. He reported on the
recent Planning and Zoning Board worksession during which metro districts and the lighting
code were discussed. Additionally, the Board discussed the Saving Places conference call
about saving historic places around the state. He stated the Board will be discussing the
wireless telecommunications master plan at its next worksession and asked if anyone would
be able to attend that meeting. Gavaldon volunteered to attend.
Borchert stated he is taking the healthy homes training through the City and commented on
a pedestrian signal button being blocked by snow. Iverson replied the snow crews are
working through getting sidewalks and ramps after streets.
Brown commended snow plowing efforts.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 9
Rachline commented on snow plowing stating there are some remaining hazardous issues,
particularly for pedestrians. She also stated nothing has changed with the situation
regarding cars backing up at Raising Cane’s. Iverson replied their redevelopment plans are
currently in the process.
York questioned why signage couldn’t be used to direct traffic to the back rather than having
an entire redevelopment plan.
Gavaldon noted that issue came up at a listening session with one of the mayoral
candidates.
York thanked Chair Hart for his service as Chair.
Lopez reported on the Colorado Energy Office promoting a new electrification plan and
surveying medium- and heavy-duty fleets for electrification.
Chair Hart commented on his term as Chair and stated he is looking forward to being a
boardmember.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Report
Gavaldon stated there was no report given last month’s joint meeting.
b. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review
Iverson stated metro districts are on the April 20th agenda and the new Council will be
sworn in on April 27th.
c. Staff Liaison Report
Regarding the April agenda, Iverson stated the Engineering Department has
requested to come before the Board regarding potential changes to the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards. He also stated there may be a discussion
about initial budget offers.
Iverson discussed his conversation with Parks Planning about the Poudre Trail and
stated the plan is for the trail to cross the new bridge at the whitewater park, go north
of the river, then under Linden. He also noted he included crash data about the
Magnolia/Canyon/Sherwood intersection in the chat and no crashes have occurred
since 2014.
York asked if Courtney has started as the new Active Modes Manager. Iverson
replied in the affirmative and stated work will begin soon on the Active Modes Plan.
York asked if there are any updates on Bike to Work Day and Bike Month. Iverson
replied the current plan is for Bike to Work Day to return this year. He also stated
Open Streets will occur in the fall.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /17/2021 – MINUTES Page 10
Gavaldon commended Chair Hart on his service as Chair and congratulated Rachline
and Brown on their new roles.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by unanimous consent.
Exhibit K to Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Service Plan for Multiple Districts
NOTICE OF INCLUSION IN A RESIDENTIAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
AND POSSIBLE PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES
Legal description of the property and address:
(Insert legal description and property address).
This property is located in the following metropolitan district:
(Insert District Name).
In addition to standard property taxes identified on the next page, this property is subject to a
metropolitan district mill levy (another property tax) ofup to:
(Insert mill levy maximum).
Based on the property's inclusion in the metropolitan district, an average home sales price of
$300,000 could result in ADDITIONAL annual property taxes up to:
(Insert amount).
The next page provides examples of estimated total annual property taxes that could be due on
this property, first if located outside the metropolitan district and next if located within the
metropolitan district. Note: property that is not within a metropolitan district would not pay
the ADDITIONAL amount.
The metropolitan district board can be reached as follows:
(Insert contact information).
You may wish to consult with: (1) the Larimer County Assessor's Office, to determine the
specific amount of metropolitan district taxes currently due on this property; and (2) the
metropolitan district board, to determine the highest possible amount of metropolitan district
property taxes that could be assessed on this property.
ATTACHMENT 10
Exhibit K to Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Serivce Plan for Multiple Districts
ESTIMATE OF PROPERTY TAXES
Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value Without the District
Taxing Entity Mill Levies
(2017**)
Annual tax levied
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount
City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert amount
Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value With the District
(Assuming Maximum District Mill Levy)
Taxing Entity Mill Levies
(2017**)
Annual tax levied
Insert District Name Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount
City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert total
**This estimate of mill levies is based upon mill levies certified by the Larimer County Assessor's Office in
December 20_ for collection in 20_, and is intended only to provide approximations of the total overlapping mill
levies within the District. The stated mill levies are subject to change and you should contact the Larimer County
Assessor's Office to obtain accurate and current information.
April 20, 2021
Metropolitanpolitan Districts Policy
Am endmentsRyan Mounce and Paul Sizemore
ATTACHMENT 11
Metropolitan District Policy Background
2
2019 Metropolitan District Policy
§Establishes the criteria,guidelines and processes followed by City
Council and City staff in considering service plans for the organization of
Metropolitanpolitan districts
§The Policy encourages the formation of a District that delivers extraordinary
public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City
§The approval of a Service Plan is at the sole discretion of City Council
Metropolitan District Policy Updates
3
Metropolitan District:Areas of Concern:
§Tr ansparency for purchasers
§Guidance on measurable demonstration of extraordinary public benefits
§Cost burden to residents,given increased property taxes within a
Metropolitan district
Overview of Proposed Changes
4
1)Approval Process Updates
Changes to the Metropolitan district approval process and standardize a review
cycle for the new evaluation system
§Required pre-application meeting (‘conceptual review’)with Council prior to
formal submittal
§System review cycle (2-years)
§Evaluate system efficacy
§Adjust points/requirements following changes to City development
and building codes
5
Step 1
•City Council Pre-Application “Conceptual
Review ”
Step 2
•Public
Benefits
Ag reement
•Development
Ag reement
Step 3
•Building
Permit
Review to ensure compliance with evaluation system
Step 4
•Certificate of
Occupancy provided only when criteria are met.
Approval & Compliance Process
Overview of Proposed Changes
6
2)Tr ansparency &Disclosure Enhancements
Emphasize disclosure in title work for all properties within the Metropolitan
district,including information on:
§Maximum number of mills that can be levied
§Maximum property tax that can be collected based on avg.assessed value
§Chart comparing property taxes in the district to taxes outside the district
§Contact information for the district’s board of directors
Included in the Model Service Plans attached to Metropolitan District Policy
Overview of Proposed Changes
7
3)Points-based Evaluation System
Defines expectations and outcomes on how to provide extraordinary public
benefits wi thin a residential Metropolitan district
§Evaluation tool for Council &staff;approval remains at Council discretion
§Predictable metrics aligned towards the City policy goals and objectives
§Emphasis on housing and energy /water efficiency measures to promote
long-term user cost benefits
§Mix of prescriptive options and flexibility to demonstrate innovation
Residential Evaluation System Components
Extraordinary Community Benefits
Housing
Energy & W ater ConservationNeighborhood Livability
8
Balancing Objectives
9
§Demonstrating extraordinary benefits
across multiple policy areas
§Flexible options for different site
contexts /utility districts
§Availability of technology &skills
§Cost implications for developers/builders
and end users
§Impacts of design requirements on
consumer choice
Evaluation System
10 Pts.10 Pts.
(7 Outdoor/3 Indoor)
5 Pts.
Housing
Housing Plan
Land Use Code
Energy
Conservation
Our Climate
Future & Energy
Policy
Energy and
Building Code
Wa ter
Conservation
CAP & Water Plan
Building Code
Neighborhood
Livability
City Plan & TMP
Land Use Code
Major Public
Infrastructure
City Plan, TMP &
Transit MP
Code
5 Pts. Case by Case
Weighting of Outcome Areas
11
Water
Conservation
Housing
Energy
Conservation
Neighborhood
Livability
Focus on Reducing Cost Burden to Residents
Housing Elements Summary
(5 Pts. Required)
12
Housing Supply, Diversity, Choice Pts.
A) 10% of for sale units do not exceed 120% AMI 4 / 5*
B) Limit unit size for 20% of homes (multiple size categories)2 / 3*
C) 10% of units contain detached or attached accessory dwelling unit 2
Af fordable Rental Housing Pts.
A) 10% of rental units serve an income average not to exceed 60% AMI 2
B) 10% of rental units serve 60% AMI and do not use competitive funding
sources
3
* Additional points available if Zero Energy Ready (ZER) standards are met
AMI: Area Median Income
Energy Elements Summary
(10 Pts. Required)
13
Enhanced Energy Performance Pts.
A) Dept. of Energy Zero Energy Ready Construction & 3rd-party inspection 4
B) OR HERS index of 47 or less (w/o solar)4
C) OR Prescriptive Compliance Path (enhanced insulation, windows, air
tightness) or ERI of 40 or lower
3
D) OR Net Zero Energy (HERS of 0 or less)7
HERS: Home Energy Rating System
ERI: Energy Rating Index
Energy Elements Summary
(10 Pts. Required)
14
Energy Components Pts.
A) Heat homes with efficient electric heat 2
B) 5% homes built to Passive House standard 3
C) Air tightness and ventilation (balanced ventilation, heat recovery
ventilators, energy recovery ventilators)
1
D) District heating & cooling (ex: neighborhood ground source heat pump)3
E) Demand response connected thermostats 1
F) Air source heat pump electric water heater 2-3
G) EV charging for 7% of parking for attached/multifamily units 1
Energy Elements Summary
(10 Pts. Required)
15
Renew able Pts.
A) Install 50/75/100% of total energy needs in solar 1 -3
B) Install interactive grid energy storage 1 -3
Indoor Water Elements Summary
(3 Pts. Required)
16
Indoor Water Pts.
A) Wa terSense fixtures exceeding current Code 2
B) Leak detection & notification system 1
C) Sub-metering for privately owned multifamily development 1.5
D) Efficient plumbing design (Wa terSense New Home Specification).5
E) Indoor Water Use Innovation 1
Outdoor Water Elements Summary
(7 Pts. Required)
17
Outdoor Water Pts.
A) Efficient Irrigation Systems (Wa terSense certified)2
B) Efficient front landscaping (water budget of 10 gallons or less per SF)2
C) Separate drip system for trees within parkways/medians 2
D) Efficient common area water use (sliding scale based on water budget)1 –3
E) Stormwater innovation 1
F) Rain barrels (half point for every two, 100-gallon barrels).5 -1
G) Outdoor water use innovation 1 -2
Neighborhood Livability Elements Summary
(5 Pts. Required)
18
Tr ansportation Pts.
A) Off-site Trail Connections 1
B) Exemplary Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements 1
C) Publicly-accessible Level 3 EV charging stations 1
D) School trail connections 1
E) Transportation Innovation 1
Neighborhood Livability Elements Summary
(5 Pts. Required)
19
Neighborhood Amenities Pts.
A) Access to essential neighborhood services (based on # of uses)1 –3
B) Vertical mixed-use buildings 2
C) Community gathering spaces 1
D) Community workspace 1
E) Common areas food production 1
F) Neighborhood amenities innovation 1
Neighborhood Livability Elements Summary
(5 Pts. Required)
20
Natural Environment Pts.
A) Access to parks/open spaces (within ¼ mi)1
B) Enhanced wildlife habitats / ecological restoration 1
C) Expansion of adjacent natural habitat 1
D) Natural environment innovation 1
Neighborhood Livability Elements Summary
(5 Pts. Required)
21
Health, Culture, Education Pts.
A) Universal design (zero step entries –2pts)1 -2
B) .5% Arts & Culture capital infrastructure budget 1
C) Sustained educational programming 1
D) Community engagement excellence 1
E) Health, Culture or Education Innovation 1
Neighborhood Livability Elements Summary
(5 Pts. Required)
22
Health, Culture, Education Pts.
A) Universal design (zero step entries –2pts)1 -2
B) .5% Arts & Culture capital infrastructure budget 1
C) Sustained educational programming 1
D) Community engagement excellence 1
E) Health, Culture or Education Innovation 1
2 Year System Review Cycle
Residential Metropolitan District Evaluation System w ill be revisited
ever 2 years to determine:
§System Efficacy
§Adjustments to ‘Points’within all Categories
§Process Improvements
23
Engagement
Highly iterative process with support and input from:
§Interdepartmental staff/teams
§Stakeholder focus group;facilitation by Institute for the Build Environment
§Boards and Commissions Reviews;City Council work sessions
§Interviews with stakeholders,experts,other front range communities
§Third-party energy points evaluation
24
Board and Commission Summary
25
Board / Commission Recommendation
Affordable Housing Board 7-0 approval
Economic Advisory Commission 7-0 approval
Energy Board 8-0 conditional
approval
Natural Resources Advisory Board 7-0 approval
Planning and Zoning Board 7-0 approval
Tr ansportation Board No action taken
Wa ter Board 10-0 approval
Key Challenges: What We Heard
§Additional Developer Cost vs. Consumer Cost Savings
§Raising the Metropolitan District standards too high will discourage smaller
developers
§Could be challenging to achieve all objectives at the same time
§Options should reflect desired outcomes/goals. Prescriptive elements provide
predictability but there is also a need for flexibility and demonstrated innovation
§Options may not be aggressive enough to fully achieve policy goals/aspirations
§Need for future changes so points remain above evolving standards for all
development and accelerate towards long term policy goals
26
RESOURCE SLIDES
Community Benefits from Efficiency
28
Energy & water efficiency puts
money back into community
members pockets
$468
estimated annual utility savings per
household
+
Non-Energy Benefits (health, safety,
comfort) could account for an addtl $500
Source: DOE ZER Home savings & Cost Estimates
Summary –Newport Partners –2015
Source: ACEEE –Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) from
Energy Star
local example:
modeling for ZER showed
homeowner monthly
savings of $54
Source: Economics of Energy Performance –Revive
Properties –Fort Collins Green Building Lecture Series -2019Incremental cost compared to a code baseline (2009)2.5%
5%
7.5%
Climate Zone 5 (FTC)
Source: RMI –The Economics of Zero Energy Homes -2018
$ increase to
build ZER
energy savings
over 12 yrs
anticipated
energy savings/
30 yr mortgage
“It does cost more, but pays huge return on investment for homeowners, community, utilities, and
our nation.” ~ Sam Rashkin -DOE Chief Architect and Zero Energy Ready homes program lead
Case Study: Water ’s Edge/Sonders
29
Pre-Metropolitan District Design Metropolitan District Design
Evaluation System Performance of Water ’s Edge/Sonders
7 Points–Housing (limited housing size, ADU’s, affordable rental housing)
13 Points –Neighborhood Livability (community gathering & workshop
spaces, community gardens, access to nature, habitat creation)
3.5 Points –Indoor Water Conservation (indoor fixtures, plumbing design, gray water innovation)
12 Points –Outdoor Water Conservation (irrigation/landscape design, drip irrigation for trees, LID measures, rain barrels)
10 Points –Energy Conservation
30
Required Earned
5
5
3
7
10
Metropolitan District Basics
•Quasi-governmental entity with taxing authority
and the ability to issue tax exempt bonds;used to
finance Public infrastructure and services
•Authorized under Colorado's Special District Act,
Colorado Revised Statutes Ti tle 32
•Examples of infrastructure needs:
o Street infrastructure
o Non-potable water systems
o Extend utility infrastructure
o Parks/Recreation facilities
o Parking structures
o Operations and maintenance
31
Why Metropolitan Districts?
•Public infrastructure can be financed over time
•Public infrastructure can be financed at tax-exempt interest rates
•Property owners can deduct taxes paid to the district on their
federal income tax returns
•New infrastructure is funded by those who will benefit
(Constituents within the District)and not all City residents
•Permanent operation and maintenance of certain public
improvements that are not dedicated to the City
32
Our Region
33
34
Mill L evy Cap 50 Mills
Maximum O&M Levy Cap 10 Mills
Re gional Improvements Levy Cap 5 Mills (in ad ditio n to the 50 Mills limit)
Basic Infrastructure To enab le public benefit
Eminent Domain Prohibite d
Debt Limita tio n 100%of Capacity
Minimum Debt Au th orizatio n $7 millio n
Debt Term Limit 40 years unless Counc il d ecides othe rwis e
Citiz en Control As early as possible
Multip le Districts Projected over an e xte nd ed perio d
Dissolutio n
Distric ts shall have no more than thre e years from
ap proval o f the Servic e Plan to secure City Counc il
ap proval b y re solutio n
Commercial/ Re sidential Ratio N/A
City of Fort Collins Metropolitan District Policy
Front Range Metropolitan District Comparison
35
Data: Larimer County Treasurer
Graphic: Denver Post
A P roperty Tax Comparison
Johnstown:
Thompson River Ranch
(Metropolitan district)
Vs.
Thompson Crossing
(no Metropolitan district)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2021-045
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING A REVISED POLICY FOR
REVIEWING SERVICE PLANS OF METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes permits the organization of a
variety of governmental districts to finance, construct and operate certain public improvements
and services to serve the residents and businesses in those districts; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan district (“Metro District”) is one such district and it is
specifically authorized to be organized under the Special District Act in Article 1 of Title 32 of
the Colorado Revised Statues (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, before a Metro District can be organized within the boundaries of a
municipality, the Act requires that the governing body of the municipality approve by resolution
the Metro District’s proposed “Service Plan,” which is the document governing the Metro
District’s powers under the Act, such as its taxing power, power to issue debt, and the public
improvements and services it can provide (the “Service Plan”); and
WHEREAS, in July 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-069 in which it
approved a policy that sets forth various guidelines concerning the Council’s review and
approval of Metro District Service Plans (the “2008 Policy”); and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Policy provided the City would not consider Service Plans that
proposed Metro Districts to serve only residential development, but instead would only consider
Service Plans for “predominately commercial” developments, meaning developments having an
estimated assessed value for “non-residential uses” of no less than 90% of the entire
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and adopted the 2008 Policy for several
reasons, but primarily to address market conditions that were then adversely affecting
commercial development, including escalating costs to construct public infrastructure, so the
2008 Policy was approved to favor the use of Metro Districts for commercial development or
mixed-used developments in which no more than 10% of their assessed value would be
residential uses; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-079 to
significantly revise the 2008 Policy (the “2018 Policy”); and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Policy was adopted to eliminate the requirement that the
development to be served by a Metro District be predominately commercial and to allow the
consideration of Service Plans for Metro Districts proposed to be served primarily by residential
developments; and
WHEREAS, City Council stated in Resolution 2018-079 it was adopting the 2018 Policy
to address the market conditions residential development was then facing in “rising costs for
-2-
land, water, infrastructure and construction” which was “creating a disincentive for residential
development in the City to provide residents with the kind of special benefits that would also
help the City to achieve its various policy objectives, such as affordable housing, environmental
sustainability and smart growth”; and
WHEREAS, to address this concern, the 2018 Policy established as a new review
criterion for Service Plans a “Public Benefit Assessment” to be used to evaluate whether the
proposed Service Plan would “deliver public benefits through extraordinary development
outcomes” and the 2018 Policy described and gave examples of such public benefits, which
included environmental sustainability, critical public infrastructure, smart growth management
and affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Policy also established other criteria, guidelines and processes to
be followed by City staff and City Council in considering Service Plan applications, it revised
the fees to be paid by the applicants for the City’s costs to review and consider the applications,
and attached as exhibits to the 2018 Policy were model Service Plans (one for single Metro
District Service Plans and one for multiple Metro District Service Plans) to be used as a guide for
applicants and a tool in evaluating whether a proposed Service Plan has addressed the criteria in
the 2018 Policy; and
WHEREAS, after adopting the 2018 Policy, the City Council considered and approved
three Service Plans for Metro Districts serving primarily residential developments and from that
experience City staff proposed several revisions to the 2018 Policy to improve the review and
approval process for Service Plans, to add workforce or attainable housing as a new example of
an extraordinary public benefit, and to update and improve the Model Service Plans attached to
the 2018 Policy, which revisions were made to the 2018 Policy and approved by City Council’s
adoption of Resolution 2019-016 resulting in the City Council’s current Metro District policy
(the “2019 Policy”); and
WHEREAS, the 2019 Policy generally supports the formation of a Metro District serving
primarily residential development where it will deliver “extraordinary public benefits” that align
with the goals and objectives of the City as embodied in the City’s adopted long-range plans,
such as City Plan, Climate Action Plan, Transit and Transportation Master Plans, Housing Plan,
Arts and Culture Master Plan, but in applying the 2019 Policy to recent Service Plans approved
by City Council, both City Council and City staff have found it difficult to define what constitute
“extraordinary public benefits” under the 2019 Policy; and
WHEREAS, On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 083, 2020,
imposing a six-month moratorium on new applications for Metro District Service Plans; and
WHEREAS, the City Council imposed the moratorium in response to media reports and
citizen input raising concerns and questions about various taxation, debt, financial, legal and
governance problems with Metro Districts through-out Colorado and directed staff to investigate,
research and seek public input regarding these problems, and for any other problems they may
identify, and to develop and present to City Council for its consideration revisions to the 2019
-3-
Policy to ensure that future Service Plans approved by the City Council and Metro Districts
organized within the City are in the best interests of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, City staff has completed this process and identified areas for improvement
of the 2019 Policy:
WHEREAS, one area for improvement staff is proposing is an evalu ation system using
points to be applied to Metro Districts that will predominately serve residential development to
ensure they will provide at a minimum certain identified public benefits in three outcome areas,
(1) affordable and attainable housing, (2) energy and water efficiency and (3) neighborhood
livability, and such benefits must exceed the City’s minimum standards for similar development
and achieve the more aspirational aspects of the City’s long-range plans; and
WHEREAS, City staff is also proposing the 2019 Policy be revised to include a
conceptual review hearing at which potential applicants for a Metro District can present their
proposal to City Council and the public at a conceptual level to receive preliminary comments
from City Council members and the public which the applicant can then use to decide whether to
continue with a formal application for their Metro District and, if so, decide about the contents of
its application; and
WHEREAS, the revised 2021 Policy as proposed by staff is attached as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by reference (the “2021 Policy”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the adoption of the 2021 Policy is in the best
interests of the City and its residents, businesses and organizations, and that it is ne cessary for
the public’s health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves and adopts the 2021 Policy. The
2021 Policy shall replace and supersede the 2019 Policy regarding all Metro District Service
Plans and all material modifications of Service Plans considered by the City Council after the
adoption of this Resolution.
Section 3. That in approving and adopting the 2021 Policy, the City Council intends
to reserve to itself the sole discretion to approve, or not, all future Service Plans and material
modifications to Service Plans regardless of the provisions of the 2021 Policy.
-4-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
20th day of April, A.D. 2021.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
1
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF FORT COLLINS POLICY FOR REVIEWING SERVICE PLANS FOR
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
April 20, 2021
Introduction.
This policy establishes the criteria, guidelines and processes to be followed by City Council and City staff in
considering and by applicants in submitting to the City service plans for the organization of metropolitan
districts or amendments to those plans (“Policy”), as provided in Colorado’s Special District Act in Article 1
of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Act”). The Act provides that metropolitan districts are
quasi‐municipal corporations and political subdivisions (“District”) that can be organized within the
boundaries of a municipality provided the municipality’s governing body approves by resolution the
proposed service plan for the District. Under the Act, the service plan constitutes the document that
delineates the specific powers and functions the District can exercise, including the facilities and services
it can provide, the taxes it can impose and its permitted financial arrangements (the “Service Plan”). The
Act requires Districts to conform to their Service Plans.
Section 1 – Policy Objectives and Statements.
A. This Policy generally supports the formation of a District where it will deliver extraordinary public
benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary public
benefits are provided by the District or by the entity organizing the District because the District
exists to provide public improvements.
B. A District, when properly structured, can enhance the quality of development in the City. The City
is receptive to District formation that provides extraordinary public benefits which could not be
practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which would be
construed as competing or duplicative.
C. The approval of a District Service Plan is at the sole discretion of City Council, which may reject,
approve, or conditionally approve Service Plans on a case‐by‐case basis. Nothing in this Policy is
intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit this discretion of City Council, which retains full
authority regarding the approval, terms, conditions and limitations of all Service Plans.
D. Policy Objectives for All Districts.
The City will evaluate any proposed District and its Service Plan based on the District’s ability to
deliver public benefits through extraordinary development outcomes, specific examples are
provided in Exhibit A and generally occur in the following four focus areas:
1. Environmental Sustainability Outcomes: Development of public improvements that deliver or
facilitate the delivery of specific and measurable environmental outcomes, including but
2
not limited to: (i) reduction of Green House Gases (“GHG”), (ii) conservation of water or
energy, (iii) encourage multimodal transportation, (iv) enhance community resiliency – against
future environmental events (e.g., flooding, drought, etc.); (v) increase renewable energy
capacity; and/or (vi) deliver other environmental outcomes.
2. Critical Public Infrastructure: Development of public improvements that address or facilitate
addressing significant infrastructure challenges previously identified by the City, either within
or proximate to the District, whether such improvements address a locally‐significant
challenge or a City‐wide challenge.
3. Smart Growth Management: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate
the delivery of specific design components that: (i) increase the density of development within
the District; (ii) establish, enhance or address the walkability and pedestrian friendliness of the
District; (iii) increase the availability of transit and/or multimodal oriented facilities; (iv) create
compelling public spaces; and/or (v) encourage mixed‐use development patterns.
4. Strategic Priorities: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate the delivery
of strategic priorities specified in the City’s existing long‐term strategic planning documents,
such as City Plan, Affordable Housing Plan, Economic Health Strategic Plan, and applicable Sub‐
Area Plans. These priorities include, but are not limited to:
a. Affordable Housing: Deliver or facilitate the delivery of additional affordable housing units
at the City’s defined level of Area Median Income (“AMI”) or below. The City defines
Affordable Housing as units affordable to a household earning 80 percent of AMI.
b. Workforce Housing: Deliver or facilitate the delivery of workforce housing units in the
City’s defined range of AMI. For purposes of this policy, Workforce Housing units shall be
defined as units affordable to a household earning between 81 percent and 120 percent
of AMI.
c. Infill/Redevelopment: Enable the infill or redevelopment of property within the City,
especially when such development is consistent with City Plan.
d. Economic Health Outcomes: Enable delivery of specific and measurable economic
outcomes, such as: (i) job growth; (ii) retention of an existing business; and/or (iii)
construction of a missing economic resource.
In determining whether a proposed District delivers extraordinary public benefits, the City may
consider: (i) ways in which the proposed improvements exceed the City’s minimum requirements
and standards; (ii) ways in which the existence of the District facilitates the extraordinary public
benefits and whether the extraordinary benefits are feasible without the District; (iii) ways in
which the proposed extraordinary benefits work together as a system to
3
deliver greater benefit to the community than individually; and (iv) any other factors the City
deems relevant under the circumstances.
E. Policy Objectives for Residential Districts:
1. In addition to being evaluated under the applicable policy objectives in Section 1.D. and the
evaluation criteria in Section 2.A., those Districts proposed to serve predominately residential
development, shall also be evaluated under the Residential Metro Districts Evaluation Points
System table attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (the
“Residential Evaluation Points System”).
2. For purposes of this Policy, a District shall be considered to serve predominately residential
development if more than ten percent (10%) of the estimated assessed value of the
development to be served by the district will be residential development (“Residential
District”).
3. The objective in applying the Residential Evaluation Points System to Residential Districts is to
ensure that the developments served by Residential Districts provide certain minimum
extraordinary public benefits in the areas of housing, energy conservation and renewables,
indoor and outdoor water conservation, and neighborhood livability, in order to help the City
achieve its goals set for these areas in the City’s adopted policy plans
F. Policy Statements:
1. Limited Use: The City wishes to exact a high standard of use for Districts thereby limiting their
use. An applicant project is expected to deliver extraordinary benefits across multiple City
objectives two or more of the objectives described in Section 1.D. of this Policy.
2. Broad and Demonstrable Public Benefit: Districts are expected to provide broad public benefit
and the applicant will be asked to demonstrate and provide assurances of those benefits. The
City will utilize the Service Plans, development agreements, and other contractual agreements
to document and enforce District commitments.
3. District Governance: It is the intent of the City that owner/resident control of Districts occur
as early as feasible. Service Plans should include governance structures that encourage and
accommodate this. The use of control Districts (also known as “service” or “managing”
Districts) that allow developers to control the other Districts that provide the tax revenues
beyond the time needed to repay the issued debt, is to be discouraged.
4. Basic Infrastructure Improvements: A District proposing to fund basic infrastructure
improvements will not be favorably received except when used to offset higher costs
associated with delivering public benefit through extraordinary development outcomes (see
Exhibit A for examples).
4
5. Minimum District Size: A District proposed to issue less than $7 million of authorized debt will
not be considered.
Section 2 – Evaluation Criteria
A. To provide City Council with information and an assessment consistent with this Policy, staff will
review and report on all District proposals in the following areas:
1. Public Benefit Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Scan: To comprehensively and consistently
evaluate District proposals, an interdisciplinary staff team, inclusive of representatives from
Planning, Economic Health, Sustainability, and other Departments as appropriate, will be
formed. This team will rely on the City’s Triple Bottom Line evaluation approach, and other
means, to assess a District proposal consistent with this Policy and City goals and objectives
more broadly.
2. Financial Assessment: All District proposals are required to submit a Financial Plan to the City
for review. Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting information which may
be necessary, the City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability. Additionally,
should a District desire to utilize District funding for basic infrastructure improvements, as
determined by the City in its sole discretion, staff will assess the value of this benefit against
public benefits received in exchange.
3. Residential Districts: All proposals for a Residential District are required to submit to the City
a written report and analysis of how the Residential District and the development it will serve
will achieve the minimum points required under the Residential Evaluation Points System.
4. Policy Evaluation: All proposals will be evaluated by City staff against this Policy and the City’s
“Model Service Plan” attached as Exhibit “C” for single‐district Service Plans and as Exhibit “D”
for multi‐district Service Plans, with any areas of difference being identified, evaluated and
reported to City Council.
Section 3 – Application Process
A. Process Overview: The application process is designed to provide early feedback to an applicant,
adequate time for a comprehensive staff review, and the appropriate steps and meeting
opportunities with decision makers.
B. Letter of Interest: Applicant will provide City with a Letter of Interest and pay the Letter of Interest
fee (refer to fees below). The Letter of Interest shall contain the following:
1. Summary narrative of the proposed development and District proposal.
2. Sketch plan showing: property location and boundaries; surrounding land uses; proposed
use(s); proposed improvements (buildings, landscaping, parking/drive areas, water
treatment/detention, drainage); existing natural features (water bodies, wetlands, large trees,
wildlife, canals, irrigation ditches); utility line locations (if known); and photographs (helpful
5
but not required).
3. Clear justification for why a District is needed.
4. Explanation of public benefits, making specific reference to this Policy and other relevant City
documents. For Residential Districts this shall include a preliminary analysis of how the
proposal will achieve the minimum points required under the Residential Evaluation Points
System.
5. District proposal and Service Plan specifics, including: District powers and purpose; District
infrastructure and costs; mill levy rate (both debt and, operations and maintenance); term of
District; forecasted period of build‐out; proposed timeline for formation; and current
development status of project.
C. Staff Response to Letter of Interest: Staff will provide a written response to a Letter of Interest
within thirty (30) days of receipt and payment of the Letter of Interest fee.
D. Preliminary Staff Meeting with Applicant: Based on an initial review of the Letter of Interest, staff
shall meet with the applicant to discuss the District proposal, potential public benefits, initial staff
feedback, the evaluation process, fees, and other application elements.
E. City Council Conceptual Review: Prior to the applicant submitting its formal application to the City
for City Council’s consideration of a proposed Service Plan, a hearing shall be scheduled before
City Council at which staff and the applicant shall present to City Council the applicant’s Letter of
Interest for the proposed District(s). No later than thirty (30) days before the hearing, written
notice of it shall be mailed by the applicant by first‐class mail to all fee title owners of real property
within the boundaries of the proposed District(s) and of any future inclusion area proposed in the
Letter of Interest. The notice shall also be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.
In addition to stating the date, time and location of the hearing, the mailed and published notices
shall identify the property to be served by the District(s) and generally describe the proposed
District(s) and the development it will serve. The sole purpose of the hearing will be for City
Council members and the public to provide preliminary comments in response to the Letter of
Interest to be used by the applicant in determining whether to submit a formal application and, if
so, the contents of that application. Any comment, suggestion or recommendation made by any
City Council member concerning the Letter of Interest shall not bind or otherwise obligate any City
decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the any subsequent formal
application under this Policy.
F. Formal Application and Service Plan Submittal: Upon taking account of staff and City Council input,
applicant may submit a formal application for consideration following the requirements specified
in the City’s District Application, including the Service Plan in which the applicant shall highlight
the substantive provisions that deviate from this Policy and the applicable Model Service Plan
attached as Exhibit “C” or Exhibit “D”. The formal application and application fees must be
received by the City no later than the third Tuesday of December in the preceding year for a spring
election (May) or the third Tuesday of May for a fall election (November). The City cannot commit
6
to timely processing of applications submitted after these dates for their respective elections.
G. Formal Staff Review: An interdisciplinary staff team will review the applicant submittal along with
any follow‐up documentation that is requested in order to assess the application according to this
Policy and other appropriate City policy. Applicants should expect several rounds of feedback and
review from City staff.
H. Council Finance Committee Meeting: The Council Finance Committee will review all formal
applications for a District and provide feedback and recommendations.
I. Public Hearing Notice: The Service Plan Applicant must cause a written notice of the public hearing
to be mailed by first‐class mail to all fee title owners of real property within the boundaries of the
proposed District(s) and of any future inclusion area proposed in the Service Plan and such notice
shall be mailed no later than thirty (30) days before the scheduled hearing date. A notice shall also
be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no later than thirty (30) days
before the scheduled hearing date. The mailed and published notices shall include the following
information:
1. A description of the general nature of the public improvements and services to be provided by
the District;
2. A description of the real property to be included in the District and in any proposed future
inclusion area, with such property being described by street address, lot and block, metes and
bounds if not subdivided, or such other method that reasonably apprises owners that their
property will or could be included in the District’s boundaries;
3. A statement of the maximum amount of property tax mill levy that can be imposed on
property in the District under the proposed Service Plan;
4. A statement that property owners desiring to have the City Council consider excluding their
properties from the District must file a petition for exclusion with the Fort Collins City Clerk’s
Office no later than ten (10) days before the scheduled hearing date in accordance with
Section 32‐1‐203(3.5) of the Colorado Revised Statutes;
5. A statement that a copy of the proposed Service Plan can be reviewed in the Fort Collins City
Clerk’s Office; and
7
6. The date, time and location of the City Council’s public hearing on the Service Plan.
J. Council Public Hearing: The City Council will conduct a noticed public hearing at a regular or
special Council meeting to consider resolution approval of Service Plan. This hearing will occur no
later than thirty (30) days prior to the final submittal date to the District Court to order an
election. By way of example, for a fall election City Council, which meets on the first and third
Tuesdays of the month, must conduct the public hearing no later than the third Tuesday in
August.
K. Proceedings at Public Hearing: The hearing shall be conducted under and in accordance with the
applicable procedures of the City Council’s adopted “Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City
Council Meetings and Work Sessions,” except that the order of the proceedings of the public hearing
on the service plan shall be as follows:
1. Announcement of item;
2. Consideration of any procedural issues;
3. Explanation of the application by City staff;
4. Presentation by the applicant;
5. Public testimony regarding the application;
6. Rebuttal testimony by the applicant;
7. Councilmember questions of City staff and the applicant; and
8. Motion, discussion and vote by City Council.
Section 4 –Service Plan
A. Purpose: In addition to the requirements of the Act, a Service Plan should memorialize the
understandings and agreements between the District and the City, as well as the considerations
that compelled the City to authorize the formation of the District. The Service Plan must also
include all applicable information required by the Act.
B. Compliance with Applicable Law: Any Service Plan submitted to the City for approval must comply
with all state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including the Act.
C. Model Service Plan: To clearly communicate City requirements and streamline legal review, the
City will require the use of the applicable Model Service Plan attached as Exhibit “B” or Exhibit
“C”. With justification, the City may consider deviations in the proposed Service Plan, but generally
all Service Plans should include the following:
1. Eminent Domain NOT Authorized: The Service Plan shall contain language that prohibits the
District from exercising the power of eminent domain. However, the City may choose to
8
exercise its power of eminent domain to construct public improvements within the District in
which case the District and the City will enter into an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the public improvements and funding for that use of eminent domain.
2. Maximum Mill Levy: The Service Plan shall restrict the District’s total mill levy authorization
for both debt service and operations and maintenance to fifty (50) mills, subject to adjustment
as provided below. A portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be utilized by the District to fund
operations and maintenance functions, including customary administrative expenses incurred
in operating the District such as accounting and legal expenses and otherwise complying with
applicable reporting requirements. No more than ten (10) mills may be used for operations
and maintenance (the “Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy”).
a. Increased mill levies may be considered for Districts that are predominately commercial
in use, at the sole discretion of the City Council.
b. The Maximum Mill Levy may be adjustable from the base year of the District as provided
for in the Model Service Plan, so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues
generated by the District’s mill levy, as adjusted, for changes occurring after the base year,
are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of the changes.
3. Debt Term Limit: A District shall be allowed no more than forty (40) years for the levy and
collection of taxes used to service debt unless a majority of the Board of Directors of the
District imposing the mill levy are residents of such District and have voted in favor of a
refunding of a part or all of the Debt and such refunding is for one or more of the purposes
authorized in C.R.S. Section 11‐56‐104.
4. District Dissolution: Perpetual Districts shall not be allowed except in cases where ongoing
operations and maintenance are required. Except where ongoing operations and maintenance
has been authorized, a District must be dissolved as soon as practical upon:
a. The payment of all debt and obligations; and
b. The completion of District development activity.
In addition, Districts shall have no more than three years from approval of the Service Plan to
secure City Council approval by resolution of an intergovernmental agreement and/or a
development agreement documenting the public benefits described in the Service Plan. Staff
will inform City Council, in writing, of any Districts that have not obtained this approval ninety
(90) days in advance of the expiration of the three‐year period. This written notice will provide
a status update on the Districts progress towards obtaining Council approval and the other
activities of the Districts.
5. District Fees: Impact fees, development fees, service fees, and any other fees must be
identified with particularity in the District Service Plan. Impact and development fees must not
be levied or collected against the end user – i.e., residents and/or non‐developer owners.
9
6. Notice Requirements: The Service Plan shall require that the District use reasonable efforts to
assure that all developers of the property located within the District provide written notice to
all purchasers of property in the District regarding the District’s existing mill levies, its
maximum debt mill levy, as well as a general description of the District’s authority to impose
and collect rates, fees, tolls and charges. The form of notice shall be filed with the City prior to
the initial issuance of the debt of the District imposing the mill levy and shall be substantially
in the form of Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
7. Annual Report: The Service Plan must obligate the District to file an annual report not later
than September 1 of each year with the City Clerk for the year ending the preceding December
31, the requirements of which may be waived in whole or in part by the City Manager. Details
of the Annual Report are included in the Model Service Plan.
D. Service Plan Requirements: In additional to all other information required in a Service Plan by the
Act, a Service Plan must include the following:
1. Financial Plan: The Service Plan must include debt and operating financial projections prepared
by an investment banking firm or financial advisor qualified to make such projections. The
financial firm must be listed in the Bond Buyers Marketplace or, in the City’s sole discretion,
other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections. The Financial Plan must
include debt issuance and service schedules and calculations establishing the District’s
projected maximum debt capacity (the “Total Debt Limitation”) based on assumptions of: (i)
Projected Interest Rate on the debt to be issued; (ii) Projected Assessed Valuation of the
property within the District; and (iii) Projected Rate of Absorption of the assessed valuation
within the District. These assumptions must use market‐based, market comparable valuation
and absorption data and may use an annual inflation rate of three percent (3%) or the
Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12‐month period for the Denver‐Boulder‐Greeley
statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, whichever is lesser.
a. Total Debt Limitation: The total debt authorized in the Service Plan must not exceed 100%
of the projected maximum debt capacity as shown in the Financial Plan.
b. Administrative, Operational and Maintenance Costs: The Financial Plan must also include
foreseeable administrative, operational and maintenance costs.
2. Public Improvements and Estimated Costs: Every Service Plan must include, in addition to all
materials, plans and reports required by the Act, a summary of public improvements to be
constructed and/or installed by the district (the “Public Improvements”). The description of
these Public Improvements must include, at a minimum:
10
1. A map or maps, and construction drawings of such a scale, detail and size as required
by the Planning Department, providing an illustration of public improvements
proposed to be built, acquired or financed by the District;
2. A written narrative and description of the public improvements; and
3. A general description of the District’s proposed role with regard to the same.
Due to their preliminary nature, the Service Plan must indicate that the City’s approval of the
Public Improvements shall not bind the City, its boards and commissions, and City Council in
any way relating to the review and consideration of land use applications within the District.
3. Intergovernmental Agreement: Any intergovernmental agreement which is required or known
at the time of formation of the District to likely be required, to fulfill the purposes of the
District, must be described in the Service Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service
Plan must provide that execution of intergovernmental agreements which are likely to cause
substantial increase in the District’s budget and are not described in the Service Plan will
require the prior approval of City Council.
4. Extraterritorial Service Agreement: The Service Plan must describe any planned extraterritorial
service agreement. The Service Plan must provide that any extraterritorial service agreement
by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require prior approval of City
Council.
Section 5 – Regional Improvements
A. Purpose: A Service Plan may include a section addressing the planning, design, acquisition,
funding, construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment of Regional Improvements.
Such section is intended to ensure that the privately‐owned properties to be developed in a District
that benefit from the Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs.
B. Eligible Improvements: The City, to facilitate transparency, will include a list or exhibit in any
Service Plan including a Regional Improvements section that clearly identifies the improvements
to be funded, in part or whole, by a Regional Mill to be levied by the District. In selecting
improvements to be included in a Service Plan the City will apply the following standards:
1. Benefit to End User – Regional Improvements should have a clear benefit to the private‐
owned properties funding the Regional Mill Levy. The City may establish this connection either
through previous identification of the infrastructure need and/or through a technical analysis,
such as a traffic impact analysis.
2. Specificity – When possible, the City should include as much specificity about the Regional
Improvements to be included in a Service Plan as possible, while noting that any details are
preliminary and may be subject to change as planning, design, acquisition, funding,
11
construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment of the Regional Improvements
occurs.
3. No Other Funding Exists – The City will exclude improvements, either in part or whole, for
which funding mechanisms exists to support the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment. By way of example, the City
collects Capital Expansion Fees to support street oversizing, however, several bridge structures
necessary to facilitate grade separated crossings of railroad infrastructure were not included
in the calculation of these Fees; therefore, the bridges would be and eligible Regional
Improvement, where the road surface itself would not.
Section 5 – Fees
A. No request to create a Metro District shall proceed until the fees set forth herein are paid when
required. All checks are to be made payable to the City of Fort Collins and sent to the Economic
Health Office.
1. Letter of Interest Submittal Fee: A Letter of Interest is to be submitted to the City’s Economic
Health Office and a non‐refundable $2,500 fee shall be paid at the time of submittal of the
Letter.
2. Application Fee: An application along with a draft Service Plan (based on the Model Service
Plan) is to be submitted to the City’s Economic Health Office and a $7,500 non‐refundable fee
along with a $7,500 deposit towards the City’s other expenses shall be paid at the time of
submittal of the Application and draft Service Plan.
3. Annual Fee: Each District shall pay an annual fee for the City’s on‐going monitoring of each
Metro District. This annual fee shall be $500 or if multiple Districts exist serving a single project,
then the annual fee shall be $500 plus $250 for each additional District beyond the first (e.g.,
the annual fee for Consolidated ABC Metro Districts 1 to 7 shall be $500 plus $250 times six or
$2,000).
4. Non‐Model Service Plan Fee: A District proposal requesting a substantial deviation from this
Policy or the applicable Model Service Plan, shall pay an additional non‐refundable fee of
$5,000 at the time of submitting its application; the City shall in its sole and reasonable
discretion determine if a draft Service Plan proposes a substantial deviation from this Policy
or the applicable Model Service Plan.
5. Other Expenses: If the deposits paid in subsections 2 and 6 are not sufficient to cover all the
City’s other expenses, the applicant for a District shall pay all reasonable consultant, legal, and
other fees and expenses incurred by the City in the process of reviewing the draft Service Plan
or amended Service Plan prior to adoption, documents related to a bond issue and such other
expenses as may be necessary for the City to incur to interface with the District. All such fees
and expenses shall be paid within 30 days of receipt of an invoice for these additional fees and
expenses.
12
6. Service Plan Amendment Fee: If a proposed amendment to a Service Plan is submitted to the
City’s Economic Health Office, it should be submitted with a non‐refundable $2,500 fee along
with a $2,500 deposit towards the City’s other expenses and shall be paid at the time of
submittal of the application and draft amended Service Plan.
12
EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC BENEFIT EXAMPLES
The following list of examples is meant to be illustrative of the types of projects that deliver the defined
public benefits in this policy. Projects that deliver similar or better outcomes will also be considered on
their merits.
(Continued on next page)
Category / Sub-Category Example Projects
1. Green House Gas Reductions - See subsequent sub-categories
2. Water and/or Energy Conservation
- District-wide non-potable water system(s)
- District-wide renewable energy systems(s)
- Delivery of 20% or more rooftop solar
- Greywater reuse system(s) - if allowed by law
3. Multimodal Transportation
- Buffered bike lanes
- Wider than required sidewalks
- Enhanced pedestrian crossings
- Underpass(es)
4. Enhance Community Resiliency - Significant stormwater improvements (previously identified)
- Improvements to existing bridges
5. Increase Renewable Energy Capacity
- District-wide renewable energy systems(s)
- Set aside land for community solar garden(s)
- Utility scale renewable project(s)
1. Within District Area
- Community Park Land (beyond code requirements)
- Regional Stormwater Facilities
- Major arterial development
- Parking Structures (Publicly Accessible)
2. Adjacent to Proposed District - Contribution to major interchange/intersection
- Contribution to grade separated railroad crossings
Environmental Sustainability Outcomes
Critical Public Infrastructure
13
Category / Sub-Category Example Projects
1. Increase density
- Alley load construction
- Smaller Lot Size
- Increased multifamily development
2. Walkability & Pedestrian Friendliness
- Wider than required sidewalks
- Enhanced pedestrian crossings
- Underpass(es)
- Trail system enhancements
3. Increase availablity of Transit
- Improved bus stops
- Restricted access guideways for bus operations
- Transfer facilities
4. Public Spaces - Pocket Parks
- Neighborhood Parks (beyond code requirements)
1. Affordable Housing - Units permanently affordable to 80% Area Median Income
- Land dedicated to City's land bank program
2. Attainable Housing - Units permanently affordable to 81 to 120% Area Median
Income
2. Infill/Redevelopment - Address environmental contamination / concern
- Consolidate wetlands or natural area (positive benefits)
3. Economic Health Outcomes - Facilitate job growth (at or above County median income)
- Retain an existing business
High Quality and Smart Growth Management
Strategic Priorities
NOTES Points
A.10% Home Ownership at <120%
AMI
10% deed restricted, for-sale, single family units not to exceed 120% AMI
*Point multiplier: If all housing units meet DOE Zero Energy Ready (ZER) standard, 1 additional point received 4/5*
B.Limit Unit Size for 20% single family
homes
A combination of Attached or detached, single family units based on at least 2 of the following breakpoints:
5% less than 800 SF
5% between 800 to 1,100 SF
5% between 1,100 to 1,300 SF
5% between 1,300 to 1,600 SF
5% between 1,600 and 2,200 SF
**Option for Point multiplier: If 3 of the following breakpoints are selected, 1 additional point OR If all housing
units meet DOE Zero Energy Ready (ZER) standard, 1 additional point received
2/3**
C.Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's)
Detached or attached Accessory Dwelling Units between 300 and 800 SF in size for a minimum of 10% of the units
within the development plan.2
A.10% Affordable Rental Housing 10% rental units serving an income average not to exceed 60% AMI 2
B.10% Affordable Rental Housing that
does not utilize competitive funding
sources
10% rental units serving an income average not to exceed 60% AMI that does not utilize competitive funding
sources, i.e.- local limited Private Private Activity Bonds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and City
competitive grant process funding (CDBG/HOME/Affordable Housing Fund), or a development that otherwise
demonstrates it contributes net-new units of affordable housing into the Fort Collins community.
3
Required number of Housing Points 5
FORT COLLINS RESIDENTIAL METRO DISTRICTS EVALUATION POINTS SYSTEM
Required Number of Points:
Housing - 5 points
Energy Conservaton and Renewables - 10 points *
Indoor Water Conservation - 3 points
Outdoor Water Conservation - 7 points
Neighborhood Livability - 5 points
*At least one Enhanced Energy Performance option must also be selected
1.Housing Supply, Diversity, and Choice
HOUSING
2. Affordable Rental Housing
EXHIBIT B
NOTES Points
A.DOE Zero Energy Ready (ZER) Home
Performance Path Certified with
balanced mechanical whole dwelling
ventilation
Very similar to current code, but with more rigorous 3rd party inspection. Studies show incremental cost of
building to ZER ranges from only 0.9-2.5%, with Fort Collins likely be on lower end with existing stricter building
code. ZE and ZER levels of efficiency could be achieved without aggressive or cutting-edge envelope and HVAC
solutions.1
Local example - REVIVE: Total Marginal Cost for Zero Ready (4.8%) - Increase monthly mortgage payment=$84,
Monthly savings=$138. Projected monthly utility energy bill=$20.2
1.Peterson, Gartman, Cordivae, The Economics of Zero Energy Homes, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2019 https://rmi.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/RMI_Economics_of_Zero_Energy_Homes_2018.pdf
2.McFaddin, Economics of Energy Performance – REVIVE Properties, 2019
https://www fcgov com/greenbuilding/files/mcfaddin green-finance-2019 pdf?1584398326
4
B.OR HERS index of 47 or less without
solar and single family detached and
attached dwellings must achieve 2.0 or
less ACH50 and provide balanced
mechanical whole dwelling ventilation
Building records confirm new homes in Fort Collins built to code are delivering scores of 58-62. Proficient builders
are capable of achieving a HERS in the mid 40's resulting in an average annual energy cost savings of $350-400
over a code built home.3 For Multifamily development, the HERS score shall be in accordance with RESNET
Guidelines for Multifamily Energy Ratings
3.https://www.hersindex.com/
4
C.OR Energy Rating Index (ERI) path
single family detached and attached
dwellings must achieve 2.0 or less
ACH50 with balanced mechanical
whole dwelling ventilation
Energy Rating Index (ERI) of 40 or lower. ERI as a metric has a backstop to prevent builders from a reduced
envelope performance. Must also achieve 2.0 or less ACH50 and
3
D.OR Net Zero Energy Home
Performance Path - HERS of 0 or less
with balanced mechanical whole
dwelling ventilation
Optional compliance paths that would replace all of the above requirements.
7
ENERGY, RENEWABLES & WATER
1. Enhanced Energy Performance
EXHIBIT B
NOTES Points
A. Heat homes with efficient electric
heat
Efficient electric heat is defined as a Geothermal Heat Pump or Cold Climate Air Source Heat Pump (ccASHP) with
a COP of 1.9 or greater at a heating design temp of 5o F.
Product list of qualifying ccASHP's: https://neep.org/high-performance-air-source-heat-pumps/ccashp-specification-product-
list
2
B. Build to Passive House Standard 5% of homes built to either International Passive House Association (iPHA) or Passive House Institute US (PHIUS)
standard.3
C. Build air tight homes with balanced
whole dwelling ventilation with heat or
energy recovery
Build homes to ≤ 1.5 ACH50 air tightness. Balanced mechanical whole dwelling ventilation via Heat Recovery
Ventilator (HRV) or Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV).1
D. District Heating and Cooling for
Neighborhood
Utilize electric-based centralized heating and cooling systems such as a neighborhood scale ground source heat
pump. Usually more cost effective for commercial and mixed use and not residential SF.3
E. Install qualifying connected
thermostat
Install qualifying connected thermostat from Fort Collins Utilities Peak Partners demand response (DR) program.
This bolsters the utilities DR effort by increasing the number of homes that can opt-in to the program.
https://peakpartnersfortcollins.com/
1
F. Install air source heat pump electric
water heater
Fort Collins Utilities Peak Partners connected air source heat pump water heaters get the additional point (up to 3
pts).
https://peakpartnersfortcollins.com/
2-3
G. Provide EV-Installed charging for
buildings containing R-1 or R-2
occupancies.
Provide EV-Installed charging for 7% of the total parking spaces for buildings containing R-1 or R-2 occupancies.
Single family detached and single family attached are excluded as current code requires all new single family
homes have EV ready conduit installed from the panel to a junction box located in a garage or carport.
https://www.swenergy.org/transportation/electric-vehicles/building-codes#who
1
A. Install % of total energy need in
solar (50/75/100%)
Installations may be on individual rooftops or in shared as in “solar gardens” and will be virtually net metered.
These additional points cannot be used toward total if Enhanced Energy Performance item D - Net Zero Energy
Home above is utilized.
1 - 3
B. Smart storage and grid interactivity Install interactive grid storage system that allows owners to optimize renewable energy storage and energy
utilization through smart grid technologies. Points are differentiated by size of battery, and capability of export to
the grid (3 pts)
1 - 3
Required number of Energy Saving &
Renewable Points 10
3. Renewable
ENERGY, RENEWABLES & WATER
2. Energy Components
EXHIBIT B
NOTES Points
A.WaterSense fixtures performing
above code
New construction provides fixture efficiencies surpassing code standards and must all be WaterSense Certified.
•1.0 GPF/600 gram MaP score toilets (dual flush code def) &
•1.5 gpm showerheads 2
B.Install leak detection and
notification system
Each home or unit must be water shutoff valve enabled and installed by a licensed plumber. Flo by Moen and
Phyn Plus Smart Water Assistant are two examples.1
C.Sub-metering Privately owned and maintained sub-metering is provided for individual units within multi-family development to
help with water management and leak detection. 1.5
D.Efficient plumbing design Meet Section 3.3 of the WaterSense New Home Specification, which requires that hot water distribution systems
store no more than 0.5 gallons of water between the source of hot water and the furthest existing fixtures and
provides inspection and compliance methods and details. This is also the standard used in DOE's Zero Energy
Ready program.
0.5
E.Indoor Water Use Innovation The project demonstrates indoor water use innovation and pursuit of building certifications. Points are achieved
when applied to all applicable buildings within the development.1
Required number of Indoor Water Points 3
4. Indoor Water *
ENERGY, RENEWABLES & WATER
EXHIBIT B
NOTES Points
A. Efficient Residential irrigation
systems **
Install efficient irrigation systems for all residential sprinkler systems, WaterSense Certified (WS), where available:
• Pressure reducing heads (WS) and high efficiency nozzles
• Weather-based irrigation controller (WS)
• Flow sensor
• Master valve
2
B. Water efficient landscaping for
residential front yards
Front yard - Create waterwise, plant friendly landscapes, including a water budget on a 10 gallon or less per SF
basis within residential front yards. Consider plant selection, tree protection/selection, mirroring water budget
table requirements on the commercial side, but less than 10 gpsf
2
C. Separate drip system for trees
within parkways and medians
Establish separate drip systems for trees in common areas to support urban forest health and resiliency, especially
during water shortages. 2
D. Common area water use
performing above code
12 gallons per sq. ft. max or sliding scale (e.g. – 3 pt for 8 gpsf or less, 2pts for 9-11gpsf, 1pt for 12-14 gpsf or
something similar). Align metrics to ELCO water budget table 1 - 3
E. Stormwater Innovation Uses innovative stormwater techniques such as Low Impact Development (LID) or Green Infrastructure to capture
and treat runoff at the source as defined and illustrated in the City’s LID Implementation Manual.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities//img/site_specific/uploads/fcscm-appendix-c.pdf?1549566344 1 - 2
F. Rain barrels 0.5 pt for every two, 100-gallon barrels. 1 pt maximum (CO State Law - 2 x100 gallons per residential unit on units
4 or fewer)0.5 - 1
G. Outdoor Water Use Innovation The project demonstrates outdoor water use innovation and pursuit of building certifications. Points are achieved
when applied to all applicable buildings within the development:
For single family and duplex homes: HERS H20 (No minimum score, but certification required)
WERS (No minimum score, but certification required)
Net Blue – offset 25% or more water use from new developments with water efficiency upgrades/retrofits to
existing and/or the new development(s), per the Net Blue program
1
1
2
Required number of Outdoor Water
Points 7
5. Outdoor Water *
*Compliance with these indoor and outdoor water standards do not alter a project’s responsibility to satisfy water supply requirements of ELCO, FCLWD, Fort Collins Utilities or other governing water
service district. To receive listed points, measures must be applied to all applicable areas, properties and buildings within the development.
**For water sources other than potable, additional requirements shall be included, such as water filtration, purple pipe and valve box, no cross contamination with potable supplies, and no drip
irrigation on non-potable systems.
ENERGY, RENEWABLES & WATER
EXHIBIT B
NOTES Points
A.Off-site Trail Connection Direct connections to off-site bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including but not limited to the regional paved trail
system, the low-stress bicycle network and other local paved trail systems.1
B.Exemplary Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements
Provide pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements exceeding Larimer County Urban Areas Street Standards
(LCUASS) requirements.
e.g. - buffered bicycle lanes, concrete crosswalks, enhanced intersection paving design, enhanced streetscape
design, and pedestrian-oriented lighting.
1
C.Level 3 EV Charging Stations Publicly-accessible Level 3 EV charging stations provided in convenient locations.1
D.Trail Connection provided to a
School
An off-site and off-street trail connection is provided to a neighboring public or private school.1
E.Transportation Innovation The project provides innovative transportation improvements.1
A.Access to Essential Neighborhood
Services
Includes at least two neighborhood-serving retail or service uses, e.g.- recreation facilities, childcare, daycare, and
healthcare facilities in the project (1 point) , or three or more uses (2 points), and 3 points for a grocery store or
supermarket.
1 - 3
B.Vertical Mixed-Use Buildings A mixture of uses are provided in the same building. Lower floors typically include more public uses with private
uses on the upper floors. Examples include ground floor retail or services, with remaining floors including
residential units.
2
C.Community Gathering Spaces Provides a plaza, public square, park or other similar public open space within the project that exceeds
requirements of Section 4.5.1
D.Community Workspace Provide common neighborhood workspaces; (e.g., workshops, maker spaces, over/under live workspaces).1
E.Common Areas Food Production Provisions for community gardens, edible landscapes, and/or on-site urban agriculture.1
F.Innovative Neighborhood Amenities The project provides innovative neighborhood amenities.1
2. Neighborhood Amenities
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY
1. Transportation
EXHIBIT B
NOTES Points
A.Access to Parks & Open Spaces Each resident is within 1,320 feet of a park and/or open space, including areas of respite (i.e., places that are
quiet, beautiful, naturalistic).1
B.Enhanced Habitat Integrate pollinator corridors in design, create and/or enhance wildlife habitat/corridors, ecological restoration of
degraded systems using native and adaptive landscaping in common areas.1
C.Expansion of Adjacent Natural
Habitat
If the site is contiguous or adjacent a natural area or natural habitat or feature, creates internally contiguous
habitat opportunities a minimum of ten (10) percent greater than the requirements specified in 3.4.1.1
D.Innovation in Natural Environment
Protection
The project provides innovative measures to protect or enhance the Natural Environment.1
A.Universal Design Create interior spaces that are accessible to people with diverse ability levels and that support lifelong living (1
point), e.g.- doorways that provide 32 inches of clearance and a ground floor bathroom accommodating future
installation of grab bars . Provide zero step entryways (2 points)
1 - 2
B.0.5% for Arts & Culture The amount equal to one half (0.5) percent of the total capital infrastructure construction costs of the Metro
District for the planning, design and construction of public art, including “functional art” in community spaces,
parks, plazas, playgrounds, or other areas viewable to the public.
1
C.Sustained Educational Programing Provide long-term funding in infrastructure for ongoing community engagement and educational programming
that support learners of all ages (e.g. High Plains Environmental Center, library branch, community college
branch).
1
D.Excellence in Community
Engagement
Community engagement process follows the National Charrette Institute (NCI) standards that engage diverse
constituents in participatory design processes designed to understand and accommodate community aspirations
and priorities for the specific site.
1
E.Health, Culture or Education
Innovation
The project provides innovative techniques to promote health, culture or education.1
Required Number of Neighborhood
Livability Points 5
3. Natural Environment
4. Health, Culture & Education
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY
EXHIBIT B
14
EXHIBIT C
MODEL SERVICE PLAN
Revised: 2-5-19
City of k tC���!� Health
City of Fort Collins
Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Single
District Service Plan
Revised 2-5-19
Exhibit C
Exhibit C
This model service plan template should be referenced in conjunction with the
City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing Service Plans for Title 32
Metropolitan Districts.
2
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 6
Purpose and Intent ........................................................................................................................ 6
Need for District ............................................................................................................................ 6
Objective of the City regarding District's Service Plan ................................................................... 7
Relevant Intergovernmental Agreements ...................................................................................... 7
City Approvals ................................................................................................................................. 7
DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 7
BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ........................................................................................................... 10
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFIT & ASSESSED VALUATIONl0
Project and Planned Development ................................................................................................ 10
Public Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 11
Assessed Valuation ........................................................................................................................ 12
INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ..................................................................................... 12
DISTRICT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 12
AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS ........................................................................................ 12
General Grant of Powers ................................................................................................................ 12
Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations .......................... 12
Eminent Domain Restriction ................................................................................................ 12
Fee Limitation ...................................................................................................................... 13
Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................. 13
Fire Protection Restriction ................................................................................................... 13
Public Safety Services Restriction ......................................................................................... 13
Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ................................................................. 13
Golf Course Construction Restriction ................................................................................... 14
Television Relay and Translation Restriction ........................................................................ 14
Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities .......................................................... 14
Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation .............................................................................. 14
Sub-district Restriction ......................................................................................................... 14
Privately Placed Debt Limitation ........................................................................................... 14
Special Assessments ............................................................................................................. 15
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ........................................................................... 15
Development Standards ................................................................................................................ 16
Contracting ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Land Acquisition and Conveyance ................................................................................................. 16
Equal Employment and Discrimination .......................................................................................... 17
FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT .................................................................................................. 17
Financial Plan ................................................................................................................................. 17
Mill Levies ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ............................................................................................ 17
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .......................................................... 17
Operating Mill Levy .............................................................................................................. 17
Gallagher Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 18
Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ................................................................................................... 18
Refunding Debt .................................................................................................................... 18
Maximum Debt Authorization .............................................................................................. 18
Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount .......................................................... 18
Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification ................................................................. 19
Disclosure to Purchasers ................................................................................................................ 19
External Financial Advisor .............................................................................................................. 19
Disclosure to Debt Purchasers ....................................................................................................... 20
Security for Debt ............................................................................................................................ 20
TABOR Compliance ........................................................................................................................ 20
District's Operating Costs ............................................................................................................... 20
Regional Improvements .................................................................................................................... 20
Regional Mill Levy Authority .......................................................................................................... 21
Regional Mill Levy Imposition ........................................................................................................ 21
City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements ............................................................................. 21
Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan ............................................................... 21
Expenditure of Regional Mill Levy Revenues ................................................................................. 21
Intergovernmental Agreement ............................................................................................ 21
No Intergovernmental Agreement ...................................................................................... 21
Regional Mill Levy Term ................................................................................................................. 21
4
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
Completion of Regional Improvements ......................................................................................... 22
City Authority to Require Imposition ............................................................................................. 22
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .................................................................... 22
Gallagher Adjustment .................................................................................................................... 22
City Fees ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Bankruptcy Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 22
Annual Reports and Board Meetings ................................................................................................ 22
General ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Board Meetings .............................................................................................................................. 23
Report Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 23
Narrative .............................................................................................................................. 23
Financial Statements ............................................................................................................. 23
Capital Expenditures ............................................................................................................ 23
Financial Obligations ............................................................................................................. 23
Board Contact Information .................................................................................................. 23
Other Information ................................................................................................................ 23
Reporting of Significant Events ...................................................................................................... 24
Failure to Submit ............................................................................................................................ 24
Service Plan Amendments ................................................................................................................ 24
Material Modifications ..................................................................................................................... 24
Dissolution ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Sanctions ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Intergovernmental Agreement with City ......................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Resolution of Approval ..................................................................................................................... 27
5
Revised: 2-5-19
I.INTRODUCTION
A.Purpose and Intent.
Exhibit C
The District, which is intended to be an independent unit of local government separate
and distinct from the City, is governed by this Service Plan, the Special District Act and other
applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provided by State law, City Code or this Service Plan, the District's activities are subject to review and approval by the City Council
only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S. Section 32-
1-207 of the Special District Act.
It is intended that the District will provide all or part of the Public Improvements for
the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the District.
The primary purpose of the District will be to finance the construction of these Public
Improvements by the issuance of Debt.
It is also intended under this Service Plan that the District shall not be authorized to
issue any Debt, impose a Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy or impose any Fees for
payment of the Debt unless and until the delivery of applicable Public Benefits described in
Section IV.B. of this Service Plan has been secured in accordance with Section IV.B. of this
Service Plan.
It is further intended that this Service Plan also requires the District to pay a portion of the
cost of the Regional Improvements, as provided in Section X of this Service Plan, as part of
ensuring that those privately-owned properties to be developed in the District that benefit from the
Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs.
The District is not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services
except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
It is the intent of the District to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred
or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt,
except that if the District is authorized in this Service Plan to pe1form continuing operating or
maintenance functions, the District shall continue in existence for the sole purpose of providing
such functions and shall retain only the powers necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees
authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions.
It is intended that the District shall comply with the provisions of this Service Plan and
that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section
XVII of this Service Plan.
B.Need for the District.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the
immediate vicinity of the District that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the
6
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopmen t and financing
of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the District is therefore necessary
in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic
manner possible.
C.Objective of the City Regarding District's Service Plan.
The City's objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the District to provide
for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of
the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District, but in doing so,
to also establish in this Service Plan the means by which both the Regional Improvements and the
Public Benefits will be provided. Except as specifically provided in this Service Plan, all Debt is
expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum
Debt Mill Levy Imposition Tenn for residential properties, and at a tax mill levy no higher than
the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees imposed for the payment of Debt shall be due no later than
upon the issuance of a building permit unless a majority of the Board which imposes such a Fee is
composed of End Users as provided in Section VII.B.2 of this Service Plan. Debt which is issued
within these parameters and, as further described in the Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to suppoit the servicing of the Debt and will result in
a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt.
D.Relevant Intergovernmental Agreements.
[Add description of any relevant intergovemmental agreements.]
E.City Approvals.
Any provision in this Service Plan requiring "City" or "City Council" approval or consent
shall require the City Council's prior written approval or consent exercised in its sole discretion.
Any provision in this Service Plan requiring "City Manager" approval or consent shall require the
City Manager's prior written approval or consent exercised in the City Manager's sole discretion.
II.DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized
format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding the District's Debt
Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. The District's Aggregate Mill Levy does not include
any Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy.
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that the
District may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, at a rate not to exceed
the limitation set in Section IX.B.l of this Service Plan.
Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use
application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public
7
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service
Area, which plan shall include, without limitation, any development agreement required
by the City Code.
Board: means the duly constituted Board of Directors of the District.
Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations
for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax
mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include contracts
through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality.
City Code: means collectively the City's Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
City Council: means the City Council of the City.
City Manager: means the City Manager of the City.
C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property by the
District for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan, at a rate not to
exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of this Service Plan.
Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual
rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property.
District: means the [Name of District] organized under and governed by this Service Plan.
District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District Boundary
Map.
District Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference.
End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the District,
who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or
Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner or
commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs
homes or commercial structures is not an End User.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (!) is qualified to advise Colorado
governmental entities on matters relating to the issuance of securities by Colorado
governmental entities including matters such as the pricing, sales and marketing of such
securities and the procuring of bond ratings, credit enhancement and insurance in respect of
such securities; (2) shall be an underwriter, investment banker, or individual listed as a
public finance advisor in the Bond Buyer's Municipal Market Place or, in the City's sole
discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections; and (3) is
not an officer or employee of the District or an underwriter of the District's Debt.
8
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges the District is authorized to impose
and collect under this Service Plan.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which
was prepared or approved by [Name/, an External Financial Advisor, in accordance with
the requirements of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are
to be financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating
revenue derived from property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year
in which all District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course.
Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be
added to the District Boundaries after the District's organization, which property is legally
described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in
the map attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the District is permitted to issue as set
forth in Section IX.B.7 of this Service Plan.
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which the
District's Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for
residential use, which shall include residential properties in mixed-use developments. This
maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31 of the year this Service
Plan is approved by City Council
Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in
this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public Improvements, and imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B. of
this Service Plan.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the prope1iies
in the Service Area, commonly referred to as the {Name/ development, under an Approved
Development Plan.
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned
Development.
Public Improvements: means the improvem ents and infrastructure the District is authorized
by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve the future
taxpayers and inhabitants of the District, except as specifically prohibited or limited in this
Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the improvements and
infrastructure described in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements.
Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City, as
provided in Section X of this Service Plan, for funding, in whole or part, by a Regional
Mill Levy levied by the District, including, without limitation, the public improvements
described in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Regional Mill Levy: means the prope1iy tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating
and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and
9
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this
Service Plan.
Service Area: means the property within the District Boundaries and the property in the
Inclusion Area Boundaries when it is added, in whole or part, to the District Boundaries.
Special District Act: means Article I in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as
amended.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the District approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by
the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any
other applicable law.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the District Boundaries and
within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the District Boundaries that will be
subject to the ad valorem property taxes imposed by the District.
TABOR: means Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution.
Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and incorporated by
reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding
it.
III.BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION
The area of the District Boundaries includes approximately [I11sert Number] acres and the
total area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately [I11sert
Number] acres. A legal description and map of the District Boundaries are attached hereto as
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area
Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the
District's Bound aries may expand or contract from time to time as the District undertakes
inclusions or exclusions pursuant to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in
this Service Plan. The location of the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as
Exhibit G.
IV.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION
A.Project and Planned Development.
[Describe the nature of the Project and Planned Developme11t, estimated population at
build out, timeline for development, estimated assessed value after 5 and IO years and estimated
sales tax revenue. Also, please idelllifj, all plans, i11cluding but not limited to Citywide Pla11s,
Small Area Plans, and General Development Plans that apply to any portion of the District's
Boundaries or Inclusion Area Boundaries and describe how the Project and Planned
Developme11t are consistent with the applicable plans. Please state ift/ze proposed District is to
10
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
be located withi11 a11 urba11 re11ewal area a11d if the proposed development is a11ticipati11g tlte
use of tax increment ji11a11ci11g (TIF). If the District i11te11ds to pursue TIF, please provide
i11formatio11 011 !tow lite TIF jl11a11cillg will i11teract with the District's jl11a11ci11g and how t/ze
necessary Public Improvements will be shared across the two fumli11g sources.]
Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the
development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the District. Any such
approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan.
B.Public Benefits.
In addition to providing a portion of the Public Improvements and Regional Improvements,
the organization of the District is intended to enable the Project to deliver a number of
extraordinary direct and indirect public benefits, including: (Describe Public Benefits{
( collectively, the "Public Benefits"). The Public Benefits to be enabled under this Service Plan are
specifically described in Exhibit J attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Therefore, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan,
the District shall not be authorized to issue any Debt or to impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees
for payment of Debt unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits specifically related to the
phase of the Planned Development of a portion of the Project to be financed with such Debt, Debt
Mill Levy or Fees, are secured in a manner approved by the City Council. To satisfy this
precondition to the issuance of Debt and to the imposition of the Debt Mill Levy and Fees, delivery
of the Public Benefits for each phase of the Project and the Planned Development must be secured
by the following methods, as applicable:
I.For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by the District, the District must
enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City by either (i) agreeing to
provide those Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-fiscal year obligation
of the District under TABOR, or (ii) securing performance of that obligation with a
surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City, and any such
intergovernmental agreement must be approved by the City Council by resolution;
2.For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the
Planned Development, each such Developer must either (i) enter into a development
agreement with the City under the Developer's applicable Approved Development
Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public
Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of
occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for that
phase of the Planned Development, or (ii) secure such obligations with a surety bond,
letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City, and all such development
agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution; or
3.For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided in part by the District and in part
by one or more of the Developers, an agreement between the City and the affected
District and Developers that secures such Public Benefits as legally binding obligations
11
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
using the methods described in subsections I and 2 above, and all such agreements
must be approved by the City Council by resolution.
C.Assessed Valuation.
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately [Dollar Amount]
and, at build out, is expected to be [Dollar Amount]. These amounts are expected to be sufficient
to reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan. V.INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
Other than the real property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the District shall not include
any real property into the Service Area without the City Council's prior written approval and in
compliance with the Special District Act. Once the District has issued Debt, it shall not exclude
real property from the District's boundaries without the prior written consent of the City Council.
VI.DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
The District's Board shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified "eligible elector"
of the District as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End Users
who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the District's Board as development
of the Service Area progresses. The District shall not enter into any agreement by which the End
Users' electoral control of the Board is removed or diminished.
VII.AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS
A.General Grant of Powers.
The District shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the
Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the
District Boundaries, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other
applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions,
restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan.
If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers
or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such
powers and authority shall not be deemed to be a part hereof. These new powers and authority
shall only be available to be exercised by the District if the City Council first approves a Service
Plan Amendment to specifically allow the exercise of such powers or authority by the District.
B.Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations.
The District's powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public
Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the
Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as
hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall
constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all
remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Sections XVII and XVIII of this Service
Plan:
I.Eminent Domain Restriction
12
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
The District shall not exercise its statutory power of eminent domain without first
obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the District's
exercise of its eminent domain power is being voluntarily acquiesced to by the District
and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the District's sovereign powers
and shall not negatively affect the District's status as a political subdivision of the State
as conferred by the Special District Act.
2.Fee Limitation
Any Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, shall
not be imposed by the District upon or collected from an End User. In addition, Fees
imposed for the payment of Debt shall not be imposed unless and until the requirements
for securing the delivery of the District's portion of the Public Benefits have been
satisfied in accordance with Section lV.B of this Service Plan. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, this Fee limitation shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation,
maintenance, repair or replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of
the District.
3.Operations and Maintenance
The primary purpose of the District is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop and finance the Public Improvements. The District shall dedicate
the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners'
association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City
Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The District
is specifically authorized to operate and maintain all or any part of the Public
Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate
governmental entity until such time as the District is dissolved.
4.Fire Protection Restriction
The District is not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless
such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement
with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct,
install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related
improvements installed as part of the Project's water system shall not be limited by this
subsection.
5.Public Safety Services Restriction
The District is not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However,
the District may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security
services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
6.Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction
13
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
The District shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United
States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the District to the
United States Government or the State.
7.Golf Course Construction Restriction
Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate
the construction of public golf courses within the City's boundaries, the District shall
not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop,
finance, own, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the City approved by the City Council.
8.Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The District is not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities
and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a pait of a street construction
project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written
approval from the City Council as a Service Plan Amendment.
9.Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Acknowledging that the City and other existing special districts operating within the
City currently own and operate treatment facilities for potable water and wastewater
that are available to provide services to the Service Area, the District shall not plan,
design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or
maintain such facilities without obtaining the City Council's prior written approval
either by intergovernmental agreement or as a Service Plan Amendment.
I 0. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation
The District shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption otherwise available to
the District under the City Code.
11.Sub-district Restriction
The District shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act without
the prior written approval of the City Council.
12.Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the District shall obtai n the
ce1tification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows:
Revised: 2-5-19
We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of
the District's Service Plan.
14
We [I] certify that (I) the net effective interest rate ( calculated as
defined in C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the
designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax
exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by
us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield
securities; and (2) the structure of [inse1t designation of the Debt],
including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable
considering the financial circumstances of the District.
13.Special Assessments
The District shall not impose special assessments without the prior
written approval of the City Council.
VIII.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit C
Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be constructed
and/or installed by the District. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public Improvements may
vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit H,
excluding any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to serve the Planned
Development, are approximately [Dollar Amount] in [Year] dollars and total approximately
[Dollar Amount] in the anticipated year of construction dollars. The cost estimates are based upon
preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements set forth
in Exhibit E and include all construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as
land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the
anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as
Exhibit I. Changes in the Public Improvements or cost, which are approved by the City in an
Approved Development Plan and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section
IV.B of this Service Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the
preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and
approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede
the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements. Provided,
however, any agreement approved and entered into under Section IV.B of this Service Plan for the
provision of a Public Improvement that is also a Public Benefit, shall supersede both this Service
Plan and the applicable Approved Development Plan.
Except as otherwise provided by an agreement approved under Section IV.B of this Service
Plan: (i) the design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will
be determined by the District to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned
Development and the availability of funding sources; (ii) the District may, in its discretion, phase
the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer, delay,
reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion,
operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not
constitute a Service Plan Amendment; and (iii) the District shall also be permitted to allocate costs
between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in its discretion.
15
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
The Public Improvements shall be listed using an ownership and maintenance matrix in
Exhibit E, either individually or categorically, to identify the ownership and maintenance
responsibilities of the Public Improvements.
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain
operation activities. Relating to these, the District shall comply with the following requirements:
A.Development Standards.
The District shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in
accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental
entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The District directly, or indirectly through any
Developer, will obtain the City's approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable
permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing such work. Unless waived by the City Council, the District shall be required, in acc ordance with the City
Code, to post a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for any Public
Improvements to be constructed by the District. Such development security may be released in the
City Manager's discretion when the District has obtained funds, through Debt issuance or
otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public Improvements, unless such release is
prohibited by or in conflict with any City Code provision, State law or any agreement approved
and entered into under Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Any limitation or requirement concerning
the time within which the City must review the District's proposal or application for an Approved
Development Plan or other land use approval is hereby waived by the District.
B.Contracting.
The District shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and
construction contracting requirements and limitations.
C.Land Acquisition and Conveyance.
The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the District from the
Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent
MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for improvements. Land,
easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to
conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at
no cost to the City, shall include an AL TA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the
environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites
required in the City Code.
D.Equal Employment and Discrimination.
In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the District shall not
discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging,
promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing
provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the District to accomplish the purposes of
this Service Plan.
16
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
IX.FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements.
A.Financial Plan.
The District's Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference, reflects
the District's anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of
the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the
District derived from District mill levies, Fees imposed by the District, specific ownership taxes,
and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan is based on economic,
political and industry conditions as they presently exist and reasonable projections and estimates
of future conditions. These projections and estimates are not to be interpreted as the only method
of implementation of the District's goals and objectives but rather a representation of one feasible
alternative. Other financial structures may be used so long as they are in compliance with this
Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this A1ticle IX.
Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of
Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development
assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan
anticipates that the District will acquire, construct, and complete all Public Improvements needed
to serve the Service Area.
The Financial Plan demonstrates that the District will have the financial ability to discharge
all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore, the District
will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an opinion as to
whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the District at the time of issuance.
B.Mill Levies.
It is anticipated that the District will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy
on all property within the Service Area. In doing so, the following shall apply:
I.Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum
The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum, which is fifty (50) mills.
2.Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies
The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum.
3.Operating Mill Levy
The District may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to fifty (50) mills until the
District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy of any
17
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
amount, the District's Operating Mill Levy shall cannot exceed ten (10) mills at any
point.
4.Gallagher Adjustments
In the event the State's method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable
Prope1ty changes after January I, [current year} or any constitutionally mandated tax
credit, cut or abatement, the District's Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating
Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be
increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be
determined by the District's Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual
tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor
diminished as a result of such change occurring after January I, [current year}. For
purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation
will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation.
5.Excessive Mill Levy Pledges
Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that
exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall
not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has
been approved by a Service Plan Amendment.
6.Refunding Debt
The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding
purposes if: (I) a majority of the District Board is composed of End Users and have
voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding will
result in a net present value savings.
7.Maximum Debt Authorization
The District anticipates approximately [Dollar Amount) in project costs in [Year)
dollars as set forth in Exhibit E and anticipate issuing approximately [Dollar Amount)
in Debt to pay such costs as set faith in Exhibit J, which Debt issuance amount shall
be the amount of the Maximum Debt Authorization. In addition, the District shall not
issue any Debt unless and until delivery of the District's Public Benefits have been
secured as required in Section IV.B of this Service Plan. The District shall not issue
Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. Bonds, loans, notes or other
instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum Debt
Authorization. The District must obtain from the City Council a Service Plan
Amendment prior to issuing Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization.
C.Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount.
The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued.
The maximum interest rate on any Debt, including any defaulting interest rate, is not permitted to
exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%).
18
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public
securities.
D.Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification.
The District shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the
market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payed by the
District as part of a Debt financing transaction. The District shall provide this written opinion to
the City before issuing any Debt based on it.
E.Disclosure to Purchasers.
In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings units
in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other taxing
governmental entities, the property taxes imposed under the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill
Levy and possibly the Regional Mill Levy, the District shall not be authorized to issue any Debt
under this Service Plan until there is included in the Developer's Approved Development Plan
provisions that require the following:
1.That the Developer, and its successors and assigns, shall prepare and submit to the
City Manager for his approval a disclosure notice in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit K (the "Disclosure Notice");
2.That when the Disclosure Notice is approved by the City Manager, the Developer
shall record the Disclosure Notice in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's
Office; and
3.That the approved Disclosure Notice shall be provided by the Developer, and by its
successors and assigns, to each potential End User purchaser of a residential lot or
dwelling unit in the Service Area before that purchaser enters into a written
agreement for the purchase and sale of that residential lot or dwelling unit.
F.External Financial Advisor.
An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the District to provide a written opinion
as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the District once the total amount of Debt
issued by the District exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial Advisor
is to provide advice to the District Board regarding the proposed terms and whether Debt
conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the District, the projected
tax base increase in the District, the security offered and other considerations as may be identified
by the Advisor. The District shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction, or other
appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the External
Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the Advisor's
opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature, couponing, credit
spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details of the proposed Debt serve
the best interest of the District.
Debt shall not be unde1iaken by the District if found to be unreasonable by the External
Financial Advisor.
19
Revised: 2-5-19
G.Disclosure to Debt Purchasers.
District Debt shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
"By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and
consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the
principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution
of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the
Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt
of the City of Fort Collins"
Exhibit C
Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and
interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the
offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property
within the Service Area.
H.Security for Debt.
The District shall not pledge any revenue or prope1ty of the City as security for the
indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed
as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the District's obligations; nor shall anything in the
Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in
the event of default by the District in the payment of any such obligation.
I.TABOR Compliance.
The District shall comply with the provisions of TABOR. In the discretion of the Board,
the District may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities,
services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain
under the control of the District's Board.
J.District's Operating Costs.
The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and
administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the District's organization and initial
operations, are anticipated to be [Dollar Amount], which will be eligible for reimbursement from
Debt proceeds.
In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require
operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated
and maintained. The first year's operating budget is estimated to be [Dollar Amount].
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy, as set f01th in Section IX.B.3,
as well as from other revenues leg ally available to the District.
X.REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The District shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, reloc ation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to
the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the District shall impose a
Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all prope1ty within the District Boundaries and any properties
thereafter included in the Bound aries under the following terms:
20
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
A.Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The District shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five (5)
mills as part of the District's initial TABOR election. The District shall also seek from the
electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the City obligating the District to pay as a multiple-fiscal year obligation the
proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining voter-approval of the Regional Mill
Levy and this intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the District issuing any Debt
and imposing the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy and any Fees for the repayment of Debt
under this Service Plan.
B.Regional Mill Levy Imposition.
The District shall impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills within
one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the District requesting the imposition
of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed.
C.City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements.
Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be
constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to
property owners within the Service Area. The City shall make a good faith effoit to require planned
developments that (i) are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional
Improvement also impose a Regional Milly Levy, to the extent possible.
D.Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.
If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public
improvements that the District would otheiwise be authorized to design, construct, install re
design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law.
E.Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues.
Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as
follows:
I • Intergovernmental Agreement
If the City and the District have executed an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill
Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement;
2.No Intergovernmental Agreement
If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the District and the City, then
the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the
City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating,
redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users
of the District as prioritized and determined by the City.
F.Regional Mill Levy Term.
The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years
from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed.
21
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
G.Completion of Regional Improvements.
All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year
Regional Mill Levy term.
H.City Authority to Require Imposition.
The City's authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy shall
expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the District first imposes a Debt
Mill Levy.
I.Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.
The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum.
J.Gallagher Adjustment.
In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after January I,
[current year}, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill
Levy may be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases
shall be determined by the District's Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual
tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor
diminished as a result of such change occurring after January I, [current year]. For purposes of
the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in
the method of calculating assessed valuation.
XI.CITY FEES
The District shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code.
XII.BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS
All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those
pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Im position Term and
Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve
this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be
set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii)
are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the "political or governmental
powers" reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are
also included in the "regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy
law" as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section
943(b)(6).
XIII.ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS
A.General.
The District shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no later than September I st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the
District has been issued. The annual report may be made available to the public on the City's
website.
22
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
B.Board Meetings.
The District's board of directors shall hold at least one public board meeting in three of the
four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after the District's
creation. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in accordance with the requirements of
the Special District Act and other applicable State law. This meeting requirement shall not apply
until there is at least one End User of property within the District. Also, this requirement shall no
longer apply when a majority of the directors on the District's Board are End Users.
C.Report Requirements.
Unless waived in writing by the City Manager, the District annual report must include the
following in the Annual Report:
I.Narrative
A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service
Plan for the report year.
2.Financial Statements
Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the
Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for
the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as
of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and
expenditures) for the report year.
3.Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements
in the report year.
4.Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the
amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued
in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the
Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill
levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5.Board Contact Information
The names and contact information of the current directors on the District's Board,
any District manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the report.
The District's current office address, phone number, email address and any website
address shall also be listed in the report.
6.Other Information
Revised: 2-5-19
Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Manager.
23
Exhibit C
D.Reporting of Significant Events.
The annual report shall also include information as to any of the following that occurred
during the report year:
1.Boundary changes made or proposed to the District Boundaries as of December
31 of the report year.
2.Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered
into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year.
3.Copies of the District's rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to
the District's rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year.
4.A summary of any litigation which involves the District's Public Improvements
as of December 31 of the rep01t year.
5.A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report
year.
6.Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond
a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
7.Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in
accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety
(90)day period.
E.Failure to Submit.
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District Board at its last known address.
The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five ( 45) days of the mailing of
such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan,
at the discretion of the City Manager.
XIV.SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances.
The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the District to provide
required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for
numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making
up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of
the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs provided such
Public Improvements are consistent with the then-current Approved Development Plans for the
Project and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section IV.B of this Service
Plan. Any action of the District, which is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a
Service Plan Amendment as provided in Section XV of this Service Plan or that does not comply
with provisions of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be a material modification to this Service
Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service Plan. All other departures from the
provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether such
depaitures are a material modification under this Service Plan or the Special District Act.
XV.MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Revised: 2-5-19
24
Exhibit C
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action
of the District that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless
otherwise provided in this Service Plan.
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service
Plan Amendment include, without limitation:
1.Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to
the taxpayers of the District;
2.Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or
acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service,
function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3.Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a
facility required by the Service Plan; and
4.Failure to comply with any of the preconditions, prohibitions, limitations and
restrictions of this Service Plan.
XVI.DISSOLUTION
Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which the
District was created have been accomplished, the District shall file a petition in district court for
dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the
District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other
financial obligations as required pursuant to State law.
In addition, if within three (3) years from the date of the City Council's approval of this
Service Plan no agreement contemplated under Section IV.B of this Service Plan has been entered
into by the City with the District and/or any Developer, despite the parties conducting good faith
negotiations attempting to do so, the City may opt to pursue the remedies available to it under
C.R.S. Section 32-1-70 I (3) in order to compel the District to dissolve in a prompt and orderly
manner. In such event: (i) the limited purposes and powers of the District, as authorized herein,
shall automatically terminate and be expressly limited to taking only those actions that are
reasonably necessary to dissolve; (ii) the Board of the District will be deemed to have agreed with
the City regarding its dissolution without an election pursuant to C.R.S. §32-l-704(3)(b ); (iii) the
District shall take no action to contest or impede the dissolution of the District and shall
affirmatively and diligently cooperate in securing the final dissolution of the District, and (iv)
subject to the statutory requirements of the Special District Act, the District shall thereupon
dissolve.
XVII.SANCTIONS
Should the District unde1iake any act without obtaining prior City Council approval or
consent or City Manager approval or consent under this Service Plan, that constitutes a material
modification to this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under
25
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit C
the Special Districts Act, or that does not otherwise comply with the provisions of this Service
Plan, the City Council may impose one (I) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems
appropriate:
1.Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act;
2.Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other
administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District's
development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services;
3.Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the District is in default; or
4.Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief against the District, to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law.
XVIII.INTERGO VERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY
The District and the City shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement, the form of which shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "L" and incorporated by reference
(the "IGA"). However, the City and the District may include such additional details, terms and
conditions as they deem necessary in connection with the Project and the construction and funding
of the Public Improvements and the Public Benefits. The District's Board shall approve the IGA
at its first board meeting, unless agreed otherwise by the City Manager. Entering into this !GA is
a precondition to the District issuing any Debt or imposing any Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill
Levy or Fee for the payment of Debt under this Service Plan. In addition, failure of the District to
enter into the !GA as required herein shall constitute a material modification of this Service Plan
and subject to the sanctions in Article XVII of this Service Plan. The City and the District may
amend the !GA from time-to-time provided such amendment is not in conflict with any provision
of this Service Plan.
XIX.CONCLUSION
that:
It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes
1.There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area
to be served by the District;
2.The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the District is inadequate for
present and projected needs;
3.The District is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service
Area; and
4.The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
26
Revised: 2-5-19
XX.RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Exhibit C
The District agrees to incorporate the City Council's resolution approvi ng this Service
Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented
to the Dist rict Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado.
27
Revised: 2-5-19
Exhibit D
City of Fort Collins
Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Service Plan for Multiple Districts
REVISED 2-5-19
This model service plan template should be referenced in conjunction with the
City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing Service Plans for Metropolitan
Districts.
1
Exhibit D
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 5
Pur pose and Intent ........................................................................................................................ 5
Need for District ............................................................................................................................ 5
Objective of the City regarding District's Service Plan ................................................................... 6
Relevant Intergovernmental Agreements ...................................................................................... 6
City Approvals ................................................................................................................................. 6
DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 6
BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ........................................................................................................... 9
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFIT & ASSESSED VALUATION10
Project and Planned Development ................................................................................................ 10
Public Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 10
Assessed Valuation ........................................................................................................................ 11
INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ..................................................................................... 11
DISTRICT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 11
AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS ........................................................................................ 11
General Grant of Powers ................................................................................................................ 11
Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations .......................... 12
Eminent Domain Restriction ................................................................................................ 12
Fee Limitation ...................................................................................................................... 12
Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................... 12
Fire Pr otection Restriction .................................................................................................... 13
Public Safety Services Restriction ......................................................................................... 13
Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ................................................................. 13
Golf Course Construction Restriction ................................................................................... 13
Television Relay and Translation Restriction ........................................................................ 13
Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities .......................................................... 13
Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation .............................................................................. 13
Sub-district Restriction ......................................................................................................... 14
Privately Placed Debt Limitation .......................................................................................... 14
Special Assessments ............................................................................................................. 14
2
Exhibit D
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ........................................................................... 14
Development Standards ................................................................................................................ 15
Contracting ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Land Acquisition and Conveyance ................................................................................................. 15
Equal Employment and Discrimination .......................................................................................... 16
FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT .................................................................................................. 16
Financial Plan ................................................................................................................................. 16
Mill Levies ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ............................................................................................. 17
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies ........................................................... 17
Operating Mill Levy ............................................................................................................... 17
Gallagher Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 17
Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ................................................................................................... 17
Refunding Debt ..................................................................................................................... 17
Maximum Debt Authorization .............................................................................................. 17
Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount .......................................................... 18
Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification ................................................................. 18
Disclosure to Purchasers ................................................................................................................ 18
External Financial Advisor .............................................................................................................. 18
Disclosure to Debt Purchasers ....................................................................................................... 19
Security for Debt ............................................................................................................................ 19
TABOR Compliance ........................................................................................................................ 19
District's Operating Costs ............................................................................................................... 19
Regional Improvements .................................................................................................................... 20
Regional Mill Levy Authority .......................................................................................................... 20
Regional Mill Levy Imposition ........................................................................................................ 20
City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements ............................................................................. 20
Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan ............................................................... 20
Expenditure of Regional Mill Levy Revenues ................................................................................. 20
Intergovernmental Agreement ............................................................................................. 20
No Intergovernmental Agreement ...................................................................................... 21
Regional Mill Levy Term ................................................................................................................. 21
3
Exhibit D
Completion of Regional Improvements ......................................................................................... 21
City Authority to Require Imposition ............................................................................................. 21
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .................................................................... 21
Gallagher Adjustment .................................................................................................................... 21
City Fees ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Bankruptcy Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 21
Annual Reports and Board Meetings ................................................................................................ 22
General ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Board Meetings .............................................................................................................................. 22
Report Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 22
Narrative ............................................................................................................................... 22
Financial Statements ............................................................................................................ 22
Capital Expenditures ............................................................................................................ 22
Financial Obligations ............................................................................................................. 22
Board Contact Information ................................................................................................... 23
Other Information ................................................................................................................. 23
Reporting of Significant Events ...................................................................................................... 23
Failure to Submit ............................................................................................................................ 23
Service Plan Amendments ................................................................................................................ 23
Material Modifications ..................................................................................................................... 24
Dissolution ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Sanctions ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Intergovernmental Agreement with City ......................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Resolution of Approval ..................................................................................................................... 26
4
Exhibit D I.INTRODUCTION
A.Purpose and Intent.
The Districts, which are intended to be independent units of local government separate
and distinct from the City, are governed by this Service Plan, the Special District Act and
other applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provi ded by State law, City Code or
this Service Plan, the Districts' activities are subject to review and approval by the City
Council only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act.
It is intended that the Districts will provide all or part of the Public Improvements for
the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the District.
The primary purpose of the Districts will be to finance the construction of these Public
Improvements by the issuance of Debt.
It is also intended under this Service Plan that no District shall be authorized to issue
any Debt, impose a Debt Mill Levy , Operating Mill Levy or impose any Fees for payment of
the Debt unless and until the delivery of applicable Public Benefits described in Section IV.B.
of this Service Plan has been secured in accordance with Section IV.B. of this Service Plan.
It is further intended that this Service Plan also requires the Districts to pay a portion of
the cost of the Regional Improvements, as provided in X of this Service Plan, as part of ensuring
that those pri vately-owned properties to be developed in the District that benefit from the Regional
Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs.
The Districts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services
except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
It is the intent of the Districts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Deb t incurred
or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt,
except that if the Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or
maintenance functions, the Districts shall continue in existence for the sole purpose of providing
such functions and shall retain only the powers necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees
authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions.
It is intended that the Districts shall comply with the provisions of this Service Plan
and that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in
Section XVII of this Service Plan.
B.Need for the Districts.
There are currently no other governmental ent1t1es, including the City, located in the
immediate vicinity of the Districts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the
planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and financing
5
Exhibit D
of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the Districts is therefore
necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most
economic manner possible.
C.Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan.
The City's objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the Districts to provide
for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of
the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts but in doing so,
to also establish in this Service Plan the means by which both the Regional Improvements and the
Public Benefits will be provided. Except as specifically provided in this Service Plan, all Debt is
expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum
Debt Mill Levy Imposition Tenn for residential properties, and at a tax mill levy no higher than
the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees imposed for the payment of Debt shall be due no later than
upon the issuance of a building permit unless a majority of the Board which imposes such a Fee is
composed of End Users as provided in Section VII.B.2 of this Service Plan. Debt which is issued
within these parameters and, as further described in the Financial Plan, will insulate property
owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to suppo1t the servicing of the Debt and will result in
a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt.
D.Relevant Intergovernmental Agreements.
[Add description of any relevant intergovemmental agreements.]
E.City Approvals.
Any provision in this Service Plan requiring "City" or "City Council" approval or consent
shall require the City Council's prior written approval or consent exercised in its sole discretion.
Any provision in this Service Plan requiring "City Manager" approval or consent shall require the
City Manager's prior written approval or consent exercised in the City Manager's sole discretion.
II.DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized
format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding the Districts' Debt
Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. The Districts' Aggregate Mill Levy does not include
any Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy.
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that the
Districts may each levy for their Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, at a rate not to
exceed the limitation set in Section IX.B.l of this Service Plan.
Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use
application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public
improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service
6
Exhibit D
Area, which plan shall include, without limitation, any development agreement required
by the City Code.
Board or Boards: means the duly constituted Board or Boards of Directors of the Districts,
or the boards of directors of all of the Districts in the aggregate.
Bond. Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations
for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax
mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include contracts
through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality.
City Code: means collectively the City's Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
City Council: means the City Council of the City.
City Manager: means the City Manager of the City.
C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property by the
Districts for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan, at a rate not to
exceed the limitations set in Section lX.B of this Service Plan.
Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual
rights to prope1iy in the Service Area that intends to develop the property.
District: means any one of the [Names of Districts], individually, organized under and
governed by this Service Plan.
Districts: means the [Names of Districts], collectively, organized and governed under this
Service Plan.
District No. l Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit"A-1" attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 1
Boundary Map.
District No. 2 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit"A-2" attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 2
Boundary Map.
District No. 3 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit"A-3" attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 3
Boundary Map.
District No. 1 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 1 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit "B-1" and incorporated by reference.
District No. 2 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 2 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit "B-2" and incorporated by reference.
7
Exhibit D
District No. 3 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 3 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit "B-3" and incorporated by reference.
End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the Districts,
who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or
Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial prope1ty owner or
commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs
homes or commercial structures is not an End User.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (I) is qualified to advise Colorado
governmental entities on matters relatin g to the issuance of securities by Colorado
governmental entities including matters such as the pricing, sales and marketing of such
securities and the procuring of bond ratings, credit enhancement and insurance in respect of
such securities; (2) shall be an underwriter, investment banker, or individual listed as a
public finance advisor in the Bond Buyer's Municipal Market Place or, in the City's sole
discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections; and (3) is
not an officer or employee of the Districts or an underwriter of the Districts' Debt.
Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges the Districts are authorized to
impose and collect under this Service Plan.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which
was prepared or approved by {Name[, an External Financial Advisor, in accordance with
the requirements of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are
to be financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operat ing
revenue derived from property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course.
Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be
added to the Districts' Boundaries after the Districts' organization, which property is
legally described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference and
depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the District s are permitted to issue as
set fmth in Section IX.B.7 of this Service Plan.
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which the
Districts' Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for
residential use, which shall include residential proper ties in mixed-use developments. This
maximum term shall not exceed forty ( 40) years from December 31 of the year this Service
Plan is approved by City Council
Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of funding the Districts' administration, operations and maintenance as authorized
in this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public
Improvements, and imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of
this Service Plan.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties
in the Service Area, commonly referred to as the /Name[ development, under an Approved
Development Plan.
8
Exhibit D
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned
Development.
Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the Districts are
authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve
the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the Districts, except as specifically prohibited or
limited in this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the
improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and
incorporated by reference. Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements.
Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City, as
provided in Section X of this Service Plan, for funding, in whole or part, by a Regional
Mill Levy levied by the Districts, including, without limitation, the public improvements
described in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Prope1ty for the
purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating
and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and
overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this
Service Plan.
Service Area: means the property collectively within the District No I Boundaries, the
District No. 2 Boundaries, the District No. 3 Boundaries and the property in the Inclusion
Area Boundaries when it is added, in whole or part.
Special District Act: means Atticle I in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as
amended.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by
the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any
other applicable law.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Taxable Prope1ty: means the real and personal propetty within the Service Area that will
be subject to the ad valorem property taxes imposed by the Districts.
TABOR: means Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights in A1ticle X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution.
Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and incorporated by
reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding
it.
III.BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION
The Service Area, without the Inclusion Area Boundaries, includes approximately [Insert
Number] acres and the total area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is
approximately [Insert Number] acres. A legal description and map of each of the Districts'
boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3 and Exhibit B-1, B-2 and B-3,
respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are attached hereto as
Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the boundaries of the Districts may
9
Exhibit D
expand or contract from time to time as the Districts undertake inclusions or exclusions pursuant
to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service Plan. The location of
the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as Exhibit G.
IV.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION
A.Project and Planned Development.
[Describe the nature of the Project and Planned Development, estimated population at
build out, timeline for development, estimated assessed value after 5 and 10 years and estimated
sales tax revenue. Also, please identify all plans, including but not limited to Citywide Plans,
Small Area Plans, and General Development Plans that apply to any portion of the Districts'
Boundaries or Inclusion Area Boundaries and describe how the Project and Planned
Development are consistent with the applicable plans. Please state if the proposed Districts are to be located within an urban renewal area and if the proposed development is anticipati11g the
use of tax increment financi11g (TIF). If the Districts intend to pursue TIF, please provide
information on how the TIF financing will interact with the Districts' fina11ci11g and how the
necessary Public Improvements will be shared across the two funding sources.]
Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the
development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the Districts. Any such
approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan.
B.Public Benefits.
In addition to providing a portion of the Public Improvements and Regional Improvements,
the organization of the Districts is intended to enable the Project to deliver a number of
extraordinary direct and indirect public benefits, including: {Describe Public Benefits{
( collectively, the "Public Benefits"). The Public Benefits to be enabled under this Service Plan are
specifically described in Exhibit J attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Therefore, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, no
District shall be authorized to issue any Debt or to impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees for
payment of Debt unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits specifically related to the
phase of the Planned Development of a portion of the Project to be financed with such Debt, Debt
Mill Levy or Fees, are secured in a manner approved by the City Council. To satisfy this
precondition to the issuance of Debt and to the imposition of the Debt Mill Levy and Fees, delivery
of the Public Benefits for each phase of the Project and the Planned Development must be secured
by the following methods, as applicable:
I.For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts,
each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City by
either (i) agreeing to provide those Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-
10
Exhibit D
fiscal year obligation of the District under TABOR, or (ii) securing performance of that
obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City,
and any such intergovernmental agreement must be approved by the City Council by
resolution;
2.For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the
Planned Development, each such Developer must either (i) enter into a development
agreement with the City under the Developer's applicable Approved Development
Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public
Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of
occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for that
phase of the Planned Development, or (ii) secure such obligations with a surety bond,
letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City, and all such development
agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution; or
3.For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided in part by one or more of the
Districts and in part by one or more of the Developers, an agreement between the City
and the affected District(s) and Developers that secures such Public Benefits as legally
binding obligations using the methods described in subsections I and 2 above, and all
such agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution.
C.Assessed Valuation.
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately [Dollar Amount]
and, at build out, is expected to be [Dollar Amount]. These amounts are expected to be sufficient
to reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
V.INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
Other than the real property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the District shall not include
any real property into the Service Area without the City Council's prior written approval and in
compliance with the Special District Act. Once the District has issued Debt, it shall not exclude
real property from the Districts' boundaries without the prior written consent of the City Council.
VI.DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
The Districts' Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified "eligible electors"
of the Districts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End
Users who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the Districts' Boards as
development of the Service Area progresses. The Districts shall not enter into any agreement by
which the End Users' electoral control of any of the Boards is removed or diminished.
VII.AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS
A.General Grant of Powers.
The Districts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the
Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the
Service Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other
11
Exhibit D
applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions,
restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan.
If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers
or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such
powers and authority shall not be deemed to be a part hereof. These new powers and authority
shall only be available to be exercised by the Districts if the City Council first approves a Service
Plan Amendment to specifically allow the exercise of such powers or authority by the Districts.
B.Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations.
The Districts' powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public
Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the
Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as
hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall
constitute a material modification under this Ser vice Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all
remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Sections XVII and XVIII of this Service
Plan:
1.Eminent Domain Restriction
The Districts shall not exercise their statutory power of eminent domain without first
obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the Districts'
exercise of the eminent domain power is being voluntarily acquiesced to by the
Districts and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the Districts'
sovereign powers and shall not negatively affect the Districts' status as a political
subdivision of the State as conferred by the Special District Act.
2.Fee Limitation
Any Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, shall
not be imposed by the Districts upon or collected from an End User. In addition, Fees
imposed for the payment of Debt shall not be imposed unless and until the requirements
for securing the delivery of the District's portion of the Public Benefits have been
satisfied in accordance with Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, this Fee limitation shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation,
maintenance, repair or replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of
the Districts.
3.Operations and Maintenance
The primary purpose of the Districts is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop and finance the Public Improvements. The Districts shall dedicate
the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners'
association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City
Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The
Districts are specifically authorized to operate and maintain all or any part of the Public
Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate
governmental entity until the such time as the District is dissolved.
12
Exhibit D
4.Fire Protection Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless
such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement
with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct,
install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related
improvements installed as part of the Project's water system shall not be limited by this
subsection.
5.Public Safety Services Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However,
the District may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security
services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
6.Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction
The Districts shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United
States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the Districts to the
United States Government or the State.
7.Golf Course Construction Restriction
Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate
the construction of public golf courses within the City's boundaries, the Districts shall
not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop,
finance, own, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the City approved by the City Council.
8.Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities
and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a pati of a street construction
project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written
approval from the City Council as a Service Plan Amendment.
9.Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Acknowledging that the City and other existing special districts operating within the
City currently own and operate treatment facilities for potable water and wastewater
that are available to provide services to the Service Area, the Districts shall not plan,
design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or
maintain such facilities without obtaining the City Council's prior written approval
either by intergovernmental agreement or as a Service Plan Amendment.
I 0. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation
13
Exhibit D
The Districts shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption otherwise available to
the Districts under the City Code.
11.Sub-district Restriction
The Districts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act
without the prior written approval of the City Council.
12.Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the Districts shall obtain the
certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows:
We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of
the District's Service Plan.
We [I] certify that (!) the net effective interest rate (calculated as
defined in C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the
designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax
exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by
us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield
securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the Debt],
including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable
considering the financial circumstances of the District.
13.Special Assessments
The Districts shall not impose special assessments without the prior
written approval of the City Council.
VIII.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be constructed
and/or installed by the Districts. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public Improvements may
vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit H,
excluding any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to serve the Planned
Development, are approximately [Dollar Amount) in [Year) dollars and total approximately
(Dollar Amount] in the anticipated year of construction dollars. The cost estimates are based upon
preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements set forth
in Exhibit E and include all construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as
land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the
anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as
Exhibit I. Changes in the Public Improvements or cost, which are approved by the City in an
Approved Development Plan and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section
IV.B of this Service Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the
preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and
approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede
the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements. Provided,
14
Exhibit D
however, any agreement approved and entered into under Section IV.B of this Service Plan for the
provision of a Public Improvement that is also a Public Benefit, shall supersede both this Service
Plan and the applicable Approved Development Plan.
Except as otherwise provided by an agreement approved under Section IV.B of this Service
Plan: (i) the design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will
be determined by the Districts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned
Development and the availability of funding sources; (ii) the Districts may, in their discretio n,
phase the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer,
delay, reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not
constitute a Service Plan Amendment; and (iii) the District shall also be permitted to allocate costs
between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in its discretion.
The Public Improvements shall be listed using an ownership and maintenance matrix in
Exhibit E, either individually or categorically, to identify the ownership and maintenance
responsibilities of the Public Improvements.
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain
operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following req uirements:
A.Development Standards.
The Districts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in
accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental
entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The Districts directly, or indirectly through any
Developer, will obtain the City's approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable
permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to petforming such work.
Unless waived by the City Council, the Districts shall be required, in accordance with the City
Code, to post a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for any Public
Improvements to be constructed by the Districts. Such development security may be released in
the City Managers discretion when the constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt
issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public Improvements, unless such
release is prohibited by or in conflict with any City Code provision, State law or any agreement
approved and entered into under Section IV .B of this Service Plan. Any limitation or requirement
concerning the time within which the City must review the Districts' proposals or applications for
an Approved Development Plan or other land use approval is hereby waived by the Districts.
B.Contracting.
The Districts shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and
construction contracting requirements and limitations.
C.Land Acquisition aud Conveyance.
The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the Districts from the
Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent
MAI appraisal for land and by an indep endent professional engineer for improvements. Land,
easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to
15
Exhibit D
conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at
no cost to the City, shall include an AL TA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the
environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites
required in the City Code.
D.Equal Employment and Discrimination.
In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the Districts shall
not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging,
promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing
provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the Districts to accomplish the purposes of
this Service Plan.
IX.FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements.
A.Financial Plan.
The Districts' Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference, reflects
the Districts' anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of
the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the
Districts derived from the Districts' mill levies, Fees imposed by the Districts, specific ownership
taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan is based on
economic, political and industry conditions as they presently exist and reasonable projections and
estimates of future conditions. These projections and estimates are not to be interpreted as the
only method of implementation of the District's goals and objectives but rather a representation of
one feasible alternative. Other financial structures may be used so long as they are in compliance
with this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this A1ticle IX.
Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of
Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development
assumptions and absorptions of the prope1ty in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan
anticipates that the Districts will acquire, construct, and complete all Public Improvements needed
to serve the Service Area.
The Financial Plan demonstrates that the Districts will have the financial ability to
discharge all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore,
the Districts will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an
opinion as to whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the Districts at the time of
issuance.
B.Mill Levies.
16
Exhibit D
It is anticipated that the Districts will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy
on all property within the Service Area. In doing so, the following shall apply:
I.Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum
The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum, which is fifty (50) mills.
2.Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies
The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum.
3.Operating Mill Levy
The Districts may each impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to fifty (50) mills until
the Districts imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once a District imposes a Debt Mill Levy of
any amount, that District's Operating Mill Levy shall not exceed ten (10) mills at any
point.
4.Gallagher Adjustments
In the event the State's method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable
Property changes after January I, [current year] or any constitutionally mandated tax
credit, cut or abatement, the Districts' Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating
Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be
increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be
determined by the Districts' Boards in good faith so that to the extent possible, the
actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor
diminished as a result of such change occurring after January I, [current year]. For
purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation
will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation.
5.Excessive Mill Levy Pledges
Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that
exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall
not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has
been approved by a Service Plan Amendment.
6.Refunding Debt
The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding
purposes if: (I) a majority of the issuing District's Board is composed of End Users
and have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding
will result in a net present value savings.
7.Maximum Debt Authorization
17
Exhibit D
The Districts anticipate approximately [Dollar Amount) in project costs in [Year]
dollars as set forth in Exhibit E and anticipate issuing approximately [Dollar Amount]
in Debt to pay such costs as set fotih in Exhibit J, which Debt issuance amount shall
be the amount of the Maximum Debt Authorization. In addition, the District shall not
issue any Debt unless and until delivery of the District's Public Benefits have been
secured as required in Section IV.B of this Service Plan. The Districts collectively
shall not issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. Bonds, loans, notes
or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum
Debt Authorization. The Districts must obtain from the City Council a Service Plan
Amendment prior to issuing Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization.
C.Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount.
The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued.
The maximum interest rate on any Debt, including any defaulting interest rate, is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%).
Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special
District Act, other applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public
securities.
D.Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification.
The Districts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the
market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payed by the
Districts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The Districts shall provide this written opinion
to the City before issuing any Debt based on it.
E.Disclosure to Purchasers.
In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings units
in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other taxing
governmental entities, the prope1iy taxes imposed under the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill
Levy and possibly the Regional Mill Levy, the Districts shall not be authorized to issue any Debt
under this Service Plan until there is included in the Developer's Approved Development Plan
provisions that require the following:
I.That the Developer, and its successors and assigns, shall prepare and submit to the
City Manager for his approval a disclosure notice in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit K (the "Disclosure Notice");
2.That when the Disclosure Notice is approved by the City Manager, the Developer
shall record the Disclosure Notice in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders
Office; and
3.That the approved Disclosure Notice shall be provided by the Developer, and by its
successors and assigns, to each potential End User purchaser of a residential lot or
dwelling unit in the Service Area before that purchaser enters into a written
agreement for the purchase and sale of that residential lot or dwelling unit.
F.External Financial Advisor.
18
Exhibit D
An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the Districts to provide a written
opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the Districts once the total amount
of Debt issued by the Districts exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial
Advisor is to provide advice to the Districts' Boards regarding the proposed terms and whether
Debt conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the Districts, the
projected tax base increase in the Districts, the security offered and other considerations as may
be identified by the Advisor. The Districts shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction,
or other appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the
External Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the
Advisor's opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature,
couponing, credit spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details of the
proposed Debt serve the best interest of the Districts.
Debt shall not be undertaken by the Districts if found to be unreasonable by the External
Financial Advisor.
G.Disclosure to Debt Purchasers.
Any Debt of the Districts shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
"By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and
consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the
principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution
of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the
Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt
of the City of Fort Collins"
Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and
interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the
offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property
within the Service Area.
H.Security for Debt.
The Districts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the
indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the Districts' obligations; nor shall anything in the
Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in
the event of default by the Districts in the payment of any such obligations.
I.TABOR Compliance.
The Districts shall comply with the provisions of TABOR. In the discretion of the Districts'
Boards, the Districts may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate
facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District
will remain under the control of the District's Board.
J.Districts' Operating Costs.
The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and
administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts' organization and initial
operations, are anticipated to be [Dollar Amount], which will be eligible for reimbursement from
Debt proceeds.
19
Exhibit D
In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require
operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated
and maintained. The first year's operating budget is estimated to be [Dollar Amount].
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy, subject to the limitations set
forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as from other revenues legally available to the Districts.
X.REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Districts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to
the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the Districts shall impose
a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all prope1ty within the Districts' Boundaries and any
propetties thereafter included in the Boundaries under the following terms:
A.Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five
(5)mills as part of the Districts' initial TABOR election. The Districts shall also seek from the
electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the City obligating the Districts to pay as a multiple-fiscal year obligation the
proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining voter-approval of the Regional Mill
Levy and this intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the Districts issuing any
Debt and imposing the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy and any Fees for the repayment
of Debt under this Service Plan.
B.Regional Mill Levy Imposition.
The Districts shall impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills
within one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the Districts requesting the
imposition of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill levy rate to be imposed.
C.City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements.
Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be
constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to
property owners within the Service Area. The City shall make a good faith effott to require planned
developments that (i) are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional
Improvement also impose a Regional Milly Levy, to the extent possible.
D.Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.
If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public
improvements that the Districts would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re
design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law.
E.Expenditure of Regional Mill Levy Revenues.
Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as
follows:
I.Intergovernmental Agreement
20
Exhibit D
If the City and the Districts have executed an intergovernrnental agreernent
concerning the Regional lrnprovernents, then the revenue frorn the Regional Mill
Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreernent;
2.No Intergovernrnental Agreernent
If no intergovernrnental agreement exists between the Districts and the City, then
the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the
City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating,
redeveloping or financing of Regional lrnprovements which benefit the End Users
of the Districts as prioritized and determined by the City.
F.Regional Mill Levy Term.
The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years
from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed.
G.Completion of Regional Improvements.
All Regional lrnprovements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year
Regional Mill Levy term.
H.City Authority to Require Imposition.
The City's authority to require the initiation of the imposition ofa Regional Mill Levy shall
expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the Districts first irnposes a Debt
Mill Levy.
I.Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.
The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum.
J.Gallagher Adjustment.
In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed January I, [current
year], or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy may
be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be
determined by each of the Districts' Boards in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual
tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor
diminished as a result of such change occurring after January I, [current year]. For purposes of
the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in
the method of calculating assessed valuation.
XI.CITY FEES
The Districts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code.
XII.BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS
All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those
pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maxirnum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Tenn and
Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve
this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii)
21
Exhibit D
are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the "political or governmental
powers" reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are
also included in the "regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy
law" as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section
943(b)(6).
XIII.ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS
A.General.
Each of th Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk
no later than September I st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating
the Districts has been issued. The Districts may file a consolidated annual report. The annual
report(s) may be made available to the public on the City's website.
B.Board Meetings.
Each of the Districts' Boards shall hold at least one public board meeting in three of the
four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after the Districts'
creation. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in accordance with the requirements of
the Special District Act and other applicable State law. This meeting requirement shall not apply
until there is at least one End User of property within the District. Also, this requirement shall no
longer apply when a majority of the directors on the District's Board are End Users.
C.Report Requirements.
Unless waived in writing by the City Manager, each of the Districts' annual repotts must
include the following:
I.Narrative
A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing the Service
Plan for the repo1t year.
2.Financial Statements
Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the
Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for
the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as
of December 31 of the repott year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and
expenditures) for the report year.
3.Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements
in the report year.
4.Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the
amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued
22
Exhibit D
in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the
Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill
levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5.Board Contact Information
The names and contact information of the current directors on the District's Board,
any District manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the report.
The District's current office address, phone number, email address and an y website
address shall also be listed in the report.
6.Other Information
Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Manager.
D.Reporting of Significant Events.
The annual report shall also include information as to any of the following that occurred
during the report year:
1.Boundary changes made or proposed to the District's boundaries as of
December 31 of the report year.
2.Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered
into or proposed as of December 3 I of the report year.
3.Copies of the District's rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to
the District's rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year.
4.A summary of any litigation which involves the District's Public Improvements
as of December 31 of the report year.
5.A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report
year.
6.Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond
a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
7.Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in
accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety
(90)day period.
E.Failure to Submit.
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District's Board at its last known address.
The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five ( 45) days of the mailing of
such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of this Service Plan,
in the discretion of the City Manager.
XIV.SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS
23
Exhibit D
This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances.
The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts to provide
required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for
numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making
up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs provided such
Public Improvements are consistent with the then-current Approved Development Plans for the
Project and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section IV.B of this Service
Plan. Any action of one or more of the Districts, which is a material modification of this Service
Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided in Section XV of this Service Plan or that
does not comply with provisions of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be a material modification
to this Service Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service Plan. All other departures
from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether
such depmiures are a material modification under this Service Plan or the Special District Act.
XV.MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action
of the Districts that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless
otherwise provided in this Service Plan.
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service
Plan Amendment include, without limitation:
I.Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to
the taxpayers of any of the Districts;
2.Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or
acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service,
function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3.Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a
facility required by the Service Plan; and
4.Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this
Service Plan.
XVI.DISSOLUTION
Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which the
Districts were created have been accomplished, the Districts shall file a petition in district comt
for dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the
Districts have provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and
other financial obligations as required pursuant to State law.
In addition, if within three (3) years from the date of the City Council's approval of this
Service Plan no agreement contemplated under Section IV.B of this Service Plan has been entered
into by the City with any of the Districts and/or any Developer, despite the patiies conducting good
faith negotiations attempting to do so, the City may opt to pursue the remedies available to it under
C.R.S. Section 32-1-701 (3) in order to compel the Districts to dissolve in a prompt and orderly
manner. In such event: (i) the limited purposes and powers of the Districts, as authorized herein,
24
Exhibit D
shall automatically terminate and be expressly limited to taking only those actions that are
reasonably necessary to dissolve; (ii) the Board of each of the Districts will be deemed to have
agreed with the City regarding its dissolution without an election pursuant to C.R.S. §32-l-
704(3)(b ); (iii) the Districts shall take no action to contest or impede the dissolution of the Districts
and shall affirmatively and diligently cooperate in securing the final dissolution of the Districts,
and (iv) subject to the statutory requirements of the Special District Act, the Districts shall
thereupon dissolve.
XVII.SANCTIONS
Should any of the Districts undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council
approval or consent or City Manager approval or consent under this Service Plan, that constitutes
a material modification to this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided
herein or under the Special Districts Act, or that does not otherwise comply with the provisions of
this Service Plan, the City Council may impose one (I) or more of the following sanctions, as it
deems appropriate:
1.Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act;
2.Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other
administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District's
development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services;
3.Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the District is in default; or
4.Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief against the District, to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law.
XVIII.INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY
Each of the Districts and the City shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement, the form of
which shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "L" and incorporated by
reference (the "IGA"). However, the City and the Districts may include such additional details,
terms and conditions as they deem necessary in connection with the Project and the construction
and funding of the Public Improvements and the Public Benefits. Each of the Districts' Boards
shall approve the IGA at their first board meeting, unless agreed otherwise by the City Manager.
Entering into this IGA is a precondition to each the Districts issuing any Debt or imposing any
Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy or Fee for the payment of Debt under this Service Plan. In
addition, failure of any of the Districts to enter into the IGA as required herein shall constitute a
material modification of this Service Plan and subject to the sanctions in Article XVII of this
Service Plan. The City and the Districts may amend the !GA from time-to-time provided such
amendment is not in conflict with any provision of this Service Plan.
XIX.CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes
that:
25
Exhibit D
I.There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area
to be served by the Districts;
2.The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts is inadequate for
present and projected needs;
3.The Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service
Area; and
4.The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XX.RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Districts agree to incorporate the City Council's resolution approving this Service
Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented
to the District Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado.
26
EXHIBIT E
Exhibit K to Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Serivce Plan for Multiple Districts
NOTICE OF INCLUSION IN A RESIDENTIAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
AND POSSIBLE PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES
Legal description of the property and address:
(Insert legal description and property address).
This property is located in the following metropolitan district:
(Insert District Name).
In addition to standard property taxes identified on the next page, this property is subject to a
metropolitan district mill levy (another property tax) ofup to:
(Insert mill levy maximum).
Based on the property's inclusion in the metropolitan district, an average home sales price of
$300,000 could result in ADDITIONAL annual property taxes up to:
(Insert amount).
The next page provides examples of estimated total annual property taxes that could be due on
this property, first if located outside the metropolitan district and next if located within the
metropolitan district. Note: property that is not within a metropolitan district would not pay
the ADDITIONAL amount.
The metropolitan district board can be reached as follows:
(Insert contact information).
You may wish to consult with: (1) the Larimer County Assessor's Office, to determine the
specific amount of metropolitan district taxes currently due on this property; and (2) the
metropolitan district board, to determine the highest possible amount of metropolitan district
property taxes that could be assessed on this property.
Exhibit K to Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Serivce Plan for Multiple Districts
ESTIMATE OF PROPERTY TAXES
Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value Without the District
Taxing Entity Mill Levies
(2017**)
Annual tax levied
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount
City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert amount
Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value With the District
(Assuming Maximum District Mill Levy)
Taxing Entity Mill Levies
(2017**)
Annual tax levied
Insert District Name Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount
City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount
TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert total
**This estimate of mill levies is based upon mill levies certified by the Larimer County Assessor's Office in
December 20_ for collection in 20_, and is intended only to provide approximations of the total overlapping mill
levies within the District. The stated mill levies are subject to change and you should contact the Larimer County
Assessor's Office to obtain accurate and current information.