HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 07/07/2022 -
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
July 7, 2022
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the June, 2 2022, Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Rudolph Farms - Metro District 30 mins. C. Frickey
2. Grocery Tax Rebate Program 30 mins. J. Poznanovic
N. Bodenhamer
3. Capital Projects - Inflationary Impact (All Projects)
45 mins. S. Freve
G. Paul
Page 1 of 309
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2022
RVSD 06/28/22 ck
July 7th 2022
Rudolph Farms - Metro District 30 min C. Frickey
Grocery Tax Rebate Program 30 min J. Poznanovic
N. Bodenhamer
Capital Projects – Inflationary Impact (All projects) 45 min G. Paul
S. Freve
August 1st 2022
Annual Financial Audit Results 25 min B. Dunn
Aquatics 45 min S. Ghose
E. Mulberry Planning: Phasing and Funding 60 min
D. Lenz
S. Tatman-
Burruss
Sept. 1st 2022
Sustainable Revenue Update 70 min G. Sawyer
J. Poznanovic
Annual Adjustment Ordinance 20 min L. Pollack
2021 Fund Balance Review 30 min B. Dunn
Oct. 6th 2022
Hold: E. Mulberry Follow-ups 30 min
D. Lenz
S. Tatman-
Burruss
Nov. 3rd 2022
Page 2 of 309
Page 3 of 309
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2022, 4-6 pm
Zoom
Council Attendees: Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson, Emily Francis
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Travis Storin, Tyler Marr, Carrie Daggett, John Duval,
Teresa Roche, Kelley Vodden, Caryn Champine, Dean Klingner, Monica Martinez,
Brad Buckman, Dana Hornkohl, Dillon Willett, Jeff Usher, Mark Laken,
Ginny Sawyer, Jennifer Poznanovic, Nina Bodenhamer, Seve Ghose,
Mike Calhoon, Kurt Friesen, Aaron Harris, Victoria Shaw, Gerry Paul,
Blaine Dunn, Randy Bailey, Trevor Nash, Amanda Newton, Jo Cech, Dave Lenz,
Sheena Freve, Zack Mozer, Molly Reeves, Erik Martin, Jackie Thiel,
Javier Echeverria, Lindsay Ex, Honore Depew, Beth Yonce, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Emily Gallichotte, Resident
Jacy Marmaduke, Coloradoan
Kevin Jones, Chamber
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from the May 5, 2022, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Kelly Olson moved for approval of
the minutes as presented. Emily Frances seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by;
Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson and Emily Francis.
A. Capital Projects – Inflationary Impacts (3 Projects)
Brad Buckman, City Engineer
Monica Martinez, Manager, FP&A
Dana Hornkohl, Director, Civil Engineering
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Three active transportation capital improvement projects are experiencing budget impacts due to inflationary
pressures: Linden Street Renovation (Linden), South Timberline Corridor (Timberline), and Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection Improvements (Vine and Lemay). The cost to complete these projects now exceeds the
appropriated budget. It is necessary to 1) reduce scope, 2) delay final delivery, and/or 3) secure additional funds
to complete these projects. Reduction of scope will result in projects that do not meet established City
standards for urban design and landscaping. Delaying final delivery until funding becomes available will
negatively impact other transportation capital projects in the delivery pipeline. Staff is recommending
supplemental appropriations totaling $4,028,000 which would allow for completion of the three projects as
intended when construction commenced. This request is coming before Council Finance Committee now to
avoid additional cost impacts due to potentially pausing and restarting active construction projects.
Page 4 of 309
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Community Capital Improvement
Project (CCIP) fund reserves to complete the Linden Street Renovation project?
• Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations of the Transportation, Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF), and General fund reserves as well as CCIP – Arterial Intersection fund to
complete the South Timberline Corridor project?
• Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations of the TCEF, General, and CCIP fund
reserves as well as Conservation Trust fund to complete the Vine/Lemay BNSF Intersection Improvements
project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Beginning in the Summer of 2021, the nation, Colorado, and the Denver region began to experience significant
inflation in construction costs (Attachments 1, 2, and 3). The two most recent Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) Colorado Construction Cost Index (CCI) reports indicated annual percentage changes of
17.45% (Q4 2021) and 31.79% (Q1 2022). These inflationary pressures are impacting three transportation
capital improvement projects that are in active construction.
Linden Street Renovation
The Linden project will transform Linden Street between Jefferson and Walnut Streets into a “convertible
street,” a roadway that can be closed to vehicular and bicycle traffic and transformed into a pedestrian
gathering space during specialty events. Construction was originally planned for 2020, with the entire project
built at once. Due to the onset of the pandemic, construction was postponed and broken into two phases to
minimize impacts to the businesses within the footprint of the project. Phase 1 construction was completed in
2021. Phase 2 began in February of this year and completion is anticipated in July. Staff anticipated that
splitting the project into two phases would result in increased mobilization and oversight costs. An additional
$400,000 was appropriated to address this cost increase. Inflation began to rise as pricing was being finalized
for Phase 2 construction in the Fall of 2021. Price increases for many unit price work items led to an increase of
approximately $500,000 to deliver the identified scope of work.
Staff has identified two alternatives to reach project completion:
• Option 1: Delay non-essential scope of work items until additional funding can be secured. Specifically, the
temporary scope reduction could include seat wall caps and outdoor furniture. This option would result in
the project not meeting the identified project goals within the promised timeframe, expose the remaining
work to further inflation, and would impact the schedule and budget for other transportation capital
projects in the design, acquisition, and construction pipeline.
• Option 2: Secure a supplemental appropriation to complete the identified scope of work on schedule.
Figure 1 - Linden Project Budget
Project Funding TCEF CCIP - Project
Specific TOTAL Increase
Existing 400,000$ 3,461,000$ 3,861,000$
Proposed -$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Total 400,000$ 3,961,000$ 4,361,000$
Linden Street
Renovation 13%
Page 5 of 309
South Timberline Corridor
The Timberline project is identified in the City’s Master Street Plan. It will reduce congestion, improve safety, as
well as enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor between Stetson Creek Road and Zephyr
Road. Construction was set for two phases. Phase 1 included the structural road elements, box culverts for the
Mail Creek Ditch and the Mail Creek Trail underpass. Ditch company requirements for water conveyance limited
Phase 1 work to be substantially completed prior to April 15, 2022. Phase 1 work began in December 2021 and
is anticipated to reach final completion in June 2022. Phase 2 included all remaining corridor improvements.
This phase was partially funded by a Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) requiring concurrence from
CDOT to advertise for construction that was not granted until February of 2022. This delay led to significant
increases for most unit price work items totaling approximately $2,148,000.
Staff has identified three alternatives to reach project completion:
• Option 1: Delay some scope of work items until additional funding can be secured. Specifically, the
temporary scope reduction could include traffic signals, irrigation, landscaping, and/or reducing the length
of corridor improvements. This option would result in the project not meeting the identified project goals
within the promised timeframe, expose the remaining work to further inflation, and would impact the
schedule and budget for other transportation capital projects in the design, acquisition, and construction
pipeline. This option has several iterations where one or more elements could be funded by a supplement
appropriation. It should be noted that some supplemental appropriation is required to move forward with
construction, and the traffic signals are required for the corridor to function.
• Option 2: Delay all Phase 2 work until additional funding can be secured. This option would have similar
impacts to Option 1 with increasing affects to pipeline projects’ schedules and budgets.
• Option 3: Secure a supplemental appropriation to complete the identified scope of work on schedule.
Please note that $400,000 in CCIP – Arterial Intersection Improvements funds are proposed as part of
Option 3. These funds have already been appropriated but were originally intended for the College and
Trilby Intersection Improvements project.
Figure 2 - Timberline Project Budget
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection Improvements
The Vine and Lemay project is the City's top transportation capital improvement project. The work includes
construction of a new road and intersection slightly east of the original Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue
intersection with a new bridge over the BNSF railway and existing Vine Drive. Primary construction began in
April of 2021 with an accelerated schedule. Construction of most infrastructure elements was completed in
December 2021 with the roadway opening several weeks ahead of schedule. Staff provided a memorandum
updating City Council of the project budget in November 2021 (Attachment 4).
As of January 2022, the primary remaining work for this project included urban design elements, Art in Public
Places, irrigation, landscaping, and work needed to complete the pedestrian underpass (future northeast trail
system) at the north end of the project. Pricing for irrigation and landscape elements had not been set at this
Project Funding STBG (Grant)Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund Bridge
Program
CCIP - Art. Int.
Imp.
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
CCIP - Ped.
Sid.Dev.TOTAL Increase
Existing 2,694,602$ 10,325$ 4,701,111$ -$ 265,000$ -$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 8,723,228$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 774,000$ 774,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 210,325$ 5,475,111$ 774,000$ 265,000$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 10,871,228$
South Timberline
Corridor 25%
Page 6 of 309
time. Surging inflation greatly affected the unit prices for this work. The delivery team conducted a significant
review of the irrigation and landscaping work to lower cost and increase value. Even after this effort, the
estimated cost for this work exceeded the identified budget by $570,000. The underpass completion also
experienced significant cost overruns. These increases were due to its late inclusion in the design effort coupled
with the accelerated schedule. All the underpass design criteria and elements had not been accounted for in the
original estimate leading to costs that exceeded the budget by roughly $790,000. The total amount needed to
complete the project is approximately $1,380,000.
Staff has identified two alternatives to reach project completion:
• Option 1: Delay non-essential scope of work items until additional funding can be secured. Specifically, the
temporary scope reduction could include irrigation and landscaping. This option would result in the project
not meeting the identified project goals within the promised timeframe, expose the remaining work to
further inflation, and would impact the schedule and budget for other transportation capital projects in the
design, acquisition, and construction pipeline.
• Option 2: Secure a supplemental appropriation to complete the identified scope of work on schedule.
The Conservation Trust Fund is shown as contributing towards the supplemental appropriation proposed in
Option 2. These funds would be used to cover a portion of the cost overrun associated with the pedestrian
underpass. Park Planning and Development has identified $242,000 that could be allocated for this effort.
These funds were originally identified for the Power Trail at Harmony Grade Separated Crossing project. This
reallocation impacts the overall funding for the Power Trail project, but the current budget shortfall exceeds this
amount.
Please note that the memorandum to City Council dated November 3, 2021 (Attachment 4) covers estimated
construction costs. The table below includes all projects costs including design and acquisition.
Figure 3 - Vine and Lemay Project Budget
Summary
If inflationary impacts continue, delaying the identified work will result in additional cost increases to these
projects and future transportation capital projects. Supplemental appropriations granted to complete all work
now will ensure that fully realized projects are completed as promised for the community.
If it is decided that portions of the work on these projects should be delayed until additional funding can be
identified, the result would likely impact the delivery schedule for the following projects that are currently
working towards final design and construction. It should be noted the projects below are already suffering from
inflationary pressures outside the potential impacts from the proposed supplemental appropriations.
• College and Trilby Intersection Improvements
• Power Trail at Harmony Grade Separated Crossing
• Siphon and Union Pacific Overpass
• Laporte Corridor Improvements – Fishback to Sunset
• College and Drake Intersection Improvements
Project Funding Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund CCIP - Project
Specific
PPD (Cons.
Trust)KFCG Utilities BOB
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
TOTAL Increase
Existing 1,220,020$ 11,930,369$ 7,247,965$ -$ 1,000,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 500,000$ 28,723,630$
Proposed -$ 427,500$ 427,500$ 283,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,380,000$
Total 1,220,020$ 12,357,869$ 7,675,465$ 283,000$ 1,242,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 500,000$ 30,103,630$
Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection
Improvements
5%
Page 7 of 309
Transportation capital improvement projects managed by the Engineering Department are just one area within
the City facing inflationary pressure. Materials and services are experiencing significant price escalations across
the entire organization. By way of examples:
• The Streets Department is managing asphalt cost increases between 12% to 40%.
• Transfort anticipates fuel costs to increase approximately 30% this fiscal year.
• Traffic Operations has noted an increase of approximately 31% for traffic poles and associated materials.
• Light & Power transformer costs as discussed at the May Finance Committee meeting
The Finance Department will come before the committee next month with additional information on
inflationary impacts to capital projects from across the City’s portfolio. There is time sensitivity to the three
projects requesting additional appropriations above as they are currently under construction, whereas there is
more flexibility to discuss systemwide pressures at the July Finance Committee meeting.
Summary of requested supplemental appropriations for all three projects.
• Transportation Fund Reserves: $200,000
• TCEF Reserves: $1,201,500
• General Fund Reserves: $1,201,500
• CCIP Reserves: $783,000
• Conservation Trust Fund: $242,000
• CCIP – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $400,000
• Total: $4,028,000
Summary of Existing Funding and Proposed Supplemental Appropriations
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Community Capital Improvement
Project (CCIP) fund reserves to complete the Linden Street Renovation project?
• Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations of the Transportation, Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF), and General fund reserves as well as CCIP – Arterial Intersection fund to
complete the South Timberline Corridor project?
• Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations of the TCEF, General, and CCIP fund
reserves as well as Conservation Trust fund to complete the Vine/Lemay BNSF Intersection Improvements
project?
Project Funding STBG (Grant)Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund CCIP - Project
Specific
PPD (Cons.
Trust)
Bridge
Program KFCG Utilities BOB CCIP - Art. Int.
Imp.
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
CCIP - Ped.
Sid.Dev.TOTAL Increase
Existing -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 3,461,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,861,000$
Proposed -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Total -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 3,961,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,361,000$
Existing 2,694,602$ 10,325$ 4,701,111$ -$ -$ -$ 265,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 8,723,228$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 774,000$ 774,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 210,325$ 5,475,111$ 774,000$ -$ -$ 265,000$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 10,871,228$
Existing -$ 1,220,020$ 11,930,369$ 7,247,965$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 28,723,630$
Proposed -$ -$ 427,500$ 427,500$ 283,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,380,000$
Total -$ 1,220,020$ 12,357,869$ 7,675,465$ 283,000$ 1,242,000$ -$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 30,103,630$
Existing 2,694,602$ 1,230,345$ 17,031,480$ 7,247,965$ 3,461,000$ 1,000,000$ 265,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 1,200,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 41,307,858$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 1,201,500$ 1,201,500$ 783,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 4,028,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 1,430,345$ 18,232,980$ 8,449,465$ 4,244,000$ 1,242,000$ 265,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 400,000$ 1,200,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 45,335,858$
Linden Street
Renovation
South Timberline
Corridor
TOTAL
Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection
Improvements
13%
25%
5%
10%
Page 8 of 309
Julie Pignataro; how many construction projects do we have going on right now?
Dana Hornkohl; we currently have three capital transportation capital projects underway that are suffering
inflationary impacts and are budget stressed.
Julie Pignataro; how many projects in total are underway across the city?
Brad Buckman; the projects we are discussing today are specifically from the Capital Group in Engineering.
Different departments are executing other projects across the city.
Julie Pignataro; you mentioned additional BFO offers for other projects for cost increases due to inflation
Brad Buckman; the projects being brought forward today are under construction and projects in the pipeline will
be addressed with BFO offers for inflationary impacts. For example, the Utilities Service Area has a portfolio of
projects that are experiencing inflationary impacts.
Julie Pignataro; do we expect that other projects will be coming forward with similar appropriation requests in
the next few months?
Travis Storin; there is a risk of seeing similar requests from other parts of the city. We plan to come back to
Council Finance in July to expand this topic beyond project specific conversations. In the case of these three
projects, we are discussing today, we have shovels in the ground, so we need to talk now.
Julie Pignataro; on these construction projects, how much of a swing in budget do we anticipate on the low and
high end?
Dana Hornkohl; we are typically budgeting between 10-15% for contingency once we reach construction to
cover unforeseen needs or potential small scope changes that are encountered because of field changes.
Julie Pignataro; in the case of these three projects, we are going beyond those percentages.
The 25% on the Timberline project is alarming. Can we go into more depth as to why the Timberline Project
impact is so much higher?
Dana Hornkohl; it is later in the inflationary surge than the other two projects - the costs were set at the latest
and had the most inflationary impact – we also compared that to other roadway construction projects that were
let in the same period in our area through Region 4 of CDOT and increases of between 20-30% have been
experienced for most projects during that time and very few have been awarded due to this. While it was
extraordinary it was not uncommon for that period of time.
Julie Pignataro; where would additional future funding come from?
Dana Hornkohl; primarily we have resources from CCIP (Community Capital Improvement Program) through
2025 that could augment these funds to help get these projects to the finish line but those have mostly been
earmarked to other projects that are in the pipeline so we would be delaying those other projects. Those CCIP
funds would need to be unearmarked and then applied to these projects.
Page 9 of 309
Travis Storin; CCIP (Community Capital Improvement Program) consists of the ¼ cent tax that goes toward
capital specifically - historically about 50% of that over all 10-year tax has gone to transportation type projects
whether sidewalks or multimodal or arterial intersections.
Julie Pignataro; how are we applying lessons learned to future projects? The annual percentage change on slide
3 (see below) – the highs are higher, and the lows are lower – are we going to have a bigger swing in the future
or what kind of plans does your department have as a result of what has happened?
Dana Hornkohl; I think paying closer attention to inflation and the trends that are related to construction.
We are paying attention to three primary indices and the level of inflation across all three
Indices doesn’t always agree although they are trending in the same direction – I think paying closer attention to
those indices and factoring that into all of our estimates as we reach 30%
Kelly Ohlson; I believe some of these projects were bid before inflation pressures really hit. Weren’t parts of
South Timberline and parts of Vine & Lemay bid before inflation took off?
Dana Hornkohl; that is correct, in the case of South Timberline, Phase 1 work was bid, awarded and underway
well in advance and Phase 2 work was bid directly during the inflationary surge period. For Vine & Lemay, the
majority of the construction infrastructure work related to the roadway was well before the surge. The
inflationary impacts did apply to landscaping and irrigation and those prices had not been set until this same
period (January and February 2022) and that leads directly to why there are insufficient funds to complete that
particular portion of work for Vine & Lemay.
Page 10 of 309
Kelly Ohlson; let’s say a project was fairly bid and then inflation hit, why is that our responsibility as a city to bear
the additional costs due to inflation? It doesn’t work the other way – your data showed there was deflation of
10% some time and we didn’t get a 10% discount. Does the city always bear the brunt of increased inflation, or
do we have legal documents that protect us?
Travis Storin; I will speak to the city-wide view, often times we will see these contracts are developed as costs
plus around the materials portion of these contracts. There are limited contractual tools available to protect the
city and pass that risk to the contractor. Gerry Paul, our Purchasing Director is on the line and can provide some
examples or context around how we manage primarily materials cost inflation.
Gerry Paul; CM/GC is a Contract Manager / General Contractor form of cost-plus contracts which are based on
actual costs plus a markup and as part of that process; 30% design, 60% design and 90% design and at each of
those points they are going out and getting quotes and estimates of what the costs will be, and costs are not
locked in until we reach 90% design.
Vine & Lemay - landscaping and irrigation prices were not locked in until 90% design which was after the
inflation surge hit
ACTION ITEM
Kelly Ohlson; would like to see a 1 - 2-page memo describing how we do our major projects and is that is the
way
-90% of city and state governments do it? Normally what the 10-15% contingency is for if we decide we want to
do something different - contingency is different than things getting more expensive. Would like to have
information for Council in 1-2 months on how we actually bid and how we protect the taxpayers.
Gerry Paul; I will take the lead to follow up to provide an overview of the city-wide approach to capital
contracting and I will work with Brad Buckman and his team. I think what we are doing is very similar to other
municipalities where some jobs are firm fixed price bid and others are cost plus depending on the project.
Travis Storin; we could have that for the July 7th Council Finance Committee discussion around inflation. We
could also include an overview of the different types of contracts that we do and why a certain tool is selected
for a certain project.
Kelly Ohlson; That sounds good - doesn’t need to be sooner than that - we are talking big picture -
I support the funding and I think we just finish the projects doing the best we can and being as fiscally
responsive as possible.
Did we explore wildlife crossing at either of these two projects (Vine & Lemay or South Timberline)? Colorado
probably has 10 of them and maybe 10 more in the works - Were they needed anywhere?
Dana Hornkohl; I will get the answer and follow up.
Kelly Ohlson; does either project add road capacity?
Dana Hornkohl; in the case of Timberline, yes additional capacity is added as part of this project.
Kelly Ohlson; I don’t want to hear that we don’t add road capacity anymore because we actually do.
Page 11 of 309
Kelly Ohlson; your charts show 10-15% inflation in many cases, but our fees we added based on inflation
(adjusted annually) were 2%. In the future can we use the same data for construction projects that we use for
fees - fees are not based on construction inflation
Travis Storin; the fees we charge for impact fees so capital expansion across police, fire, general government,
and parks – the assumptions that are used in developing those fees, pricing those fees should track with what
we are doing on the project side. The transportation capital expansion fee tracks to the construction cost index,
the other fee components do not – they follow the traditional consumer price index – that is adjusted annually
And then every 4 years – we do a fee study that comes through Council Finance Committee where we can
update any of the underlying assumptions within the fee development - fees should come up for adoption in
January 2023 – you are right, there is a conversation worth having around fee inflation assumptions that are
used on the revenue side versus the cost side
Kelly Ohlson; I don’t want the high number used for the construction cost and the low number used for fee
increase.
What are the conservation trust fund dollars being used for?
Dana Hornkohl; it is only being used for the trail portion planned for the underpass under Vine & Lemay which is
part of the future Northeast trail system.
Kelly Ohlson; I support funding so we can complete these projects
Emily Francis; I know we didn’t see this coming, but I am concerned about how many projects we are going to
see impacted by inflation and if we fully fund this how does that impact fully funding of future projects that
come to us. I don’t think we have enough information to understand the tradeoff of partially funding. For the
Linden Street project, I see seat wall caps and outdoor furniture - does that really cost $500K?
Dana Hornkohl; there are seat walls that are planned around some of the planters at the ends and in the middle
section of the street – the seat wall caps are one of the more expensive elements going around those -
Those are the two primary or highest costs items that would be short changed if we were unable to complete
the project.
Emily Francis; for South Timberline it says ‘remaining improvements’ – So, if we didn’t want to fund the entire
amount - What is the gap? What are you suggesting that we do not fund?
Dana Hornkohl; essentially there are three items on Timberline that we have the option of funding or not
funding which include; traffic signals, irrigation and landscaping with the traffic signals being integral to the
work. We could fund just the traffic signals and not the irrigation and landscaping
Emily Francis; so, what does that mean for the project? that it just doesn’t look as nice? What are we delaying?
Is it just aesthetics? How do we get that funding? For Vine & Lemay – is that the whole underpass as well?
Brad Buckman; the underpass at Vine & Lemay is currently funded - the additional funds that are needed for
Vine & Lemay would be totally applied to the irrigation and landscaping. The project budget did have sufficient
continency funding to complete the underpass – the cost overruns that contributed were partially attributed to
the underpass.
Page 12 of 309
ACTION ITEM:
Emily Francis; for future conversations like this, it would be helpful to have information about different levels of
not fully funding and what those tradeoffs involve.
Brad Buckman; for South Timberline, there was the difference between the signals and the landscaping and
irrigation – the signals are absolutely needed – that difference is $1.6M to get the project done with the signals.
The additional $500K (for a total of $2.1M) is with the landscaping and irrigation which we view as integral to
completing the project but not needed for traffic.
Emily Francis; that information would be so helpful so we understand what 70% funding might look like.
It is only going to get more expensive. It sounds like we will look at this more holistically at the July Council
Finance meeting about how we are looking at all of the budget items.
Travis Storin; that is correct - and moreover, those projects are further upstream in their design phases and are
not yet in construction so there is a greater deal of flexibility around partial funding types of options as you
describe versus the projects in front of you today which are currently in construction and needed to jump to the
front of the conversation.
Emily Francis; that makes sense - there are a whole list of projects that are going to be impacted. Does that
mean that if we say yes we are going to go ahead with funding these, does that mean we are going to have to
look at funding for the projects listed as well?
Travis Storin; I don’t think we can speak with certainty to that level, there are conversations around the scoping,
design, and partial funding rather than us simply saying we have double digit inflation, and we need to ask
Council for a bigger appropriation. To what extent to the other projects fall into the categories, I can’t speak to
that at this point.
ACTION ITEM;
Kelly Ohlson; a request for July or August - Can we have a list of the major transportation projects we anticipate
in the next 5 years as things stand now? What department owns the Mulberry project and why is that different
that Vine / Lemay and South Timberline? Who handles what transportation projects? When you are replacing
bridges, resurfacing the road, and adding bike lanes, a lot of us think of that as a transportation road project.
Brad Buckman; Mulberry is a combination within PDT of Streets, Traffic, FC Moves and Engineering. A
consolidated transportation projects. The three projects we are talking about today are Engineering projects.
Kelly Ohlson; so, who is overseeing that one? So, a bit confusing when we are told there are only three in the
pipeline, what we drive on Mulberry and have to go another way – we see that as a street project and then
today we are told these are the only three.
Dean Klingner; Mulberry is confusing, we completed a project on Mulberry in the last few years that really did
change the way the transportation operated, and that project is completed. What is going on with Mulberry
right now that is causing the closures in an under-street Utilities project
Kelly Ohlson; so, is it Laporte that is going to replace two bridges?
Dean Klingner; for Laporte, that project is not currently in construction which may be causing some confusion.
Page 13 of 309
Julie Pignataro;. I feel much better supporting Linden project and the Vine & Lemay overpass. I don’t feel as
good about supporting the whole Timberline project especially now knowing that it includes adding lanes.
Obviously we are adding safety as well – to that point when I look at the back up slide (see below) the potential
future project impacts - when you look at the pipeline. I hope that we are prioritizing things such as the Power
Trail crossing, because maybe there wouldn’t be as much traffic on Timberline if someone could actually ride
their bike safely. Things that enable people to get around in ways other than a car
Julie Pignataro; I will support but this is not a good news item - I am supportive but very cautious – I appreciate,
and I see that your whole department is being that way as well.
Emily Francis; I agree - I support Linden and the Vine /Lemay but I am also hesitant with South Timberline as
well. Will we have information on how appropriating this might impact the other projects listed by the time it
comes to Council?
Brad Buckman and Dana Hornkohl; absolutely
Brad Buckman; we definitely have a focus on bike and ped projects and multimodal projects. The South
Timberline project is also multimodal – we are vastly improving the bike and pedestrian network there.
We are adding a relatively short stretch of extra traffic capacity which is due to development in that area.
We very much take your point and agree with the direction for sure.
Julie Pignataro; would be great to tie in how each of these projects meets Council’s goals
Page 14 of 309
Travis Storin - Summary of Discussion
• Consensus reached on bringing this forward to the full Council
• Good feedback around expectations for a fee study for future capital improvement fees
• A desire for an inventory of projects
Note; In each year’s Budget document on page 30 you will see a map of all projects that are proposed regardless
of the department they come from, and they are flagged by outcome area.
• Come forward with partial funding options in addition to the fully funded options
Julie Pignataro; will the information on page 30 of the budget document include who owns the project?
Travis Storin; it would be easy for us to add the Service Area to that map display in future budget documents.
Kelly Ohlson; and for July, to understand how we bid for projects and practices to protect the taxpayers and
residents of Fort Collins as well as making sure we get an adequate number of bids.
Also, a simple chart of major construction projects that are coming in the next five years leading with
transportation - just the best guess at that moment in time
Page 15 of 309
B. Sustainable Funding Update
Ginny Sawyer, Sr. Project Manager
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Manager, Sales Tax & Revenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to continue the discussion on identifying practical and viable mechanisms to fund
desired service outcomes for specific identified funding needs by highlighting specific mechanisms and the direct
annual impacts to residents.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does Council Finance Committee have on revenue mechanisms?
2. What funding level does Council Finance Committee want to target?
3. Does Council Finance Committee agree with proposed next steps?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, masterplan developments and updates have identified clear funding needs in the
areas of parks and recreation, transit, and housing. Along with these needs and knowing the criticality of the City
climate action goals, Council Finance Committee has asked for climate funding needs to be included in funding
conversations. Annual shortfalls range from six to twelve million per area.
Funding needs identified and discussed previously:
• Parks & Recreation - $8 to $12M annual shortfall (Parks & Recreation Master Plan)
• Transit - $8M to $10M annual shortfall (Transit Master Plan)
• Housing - $8M to $9.5M annual shortfall (Housing Strategic Plan)
• Climate - $6M+ annual shortfall (not all OCFs Big Moves have funding identified)
Staff continues to work with Council Finance Committee to further refine both the needs and the potential
funding mechanisms to close the gaps. This work includes on-going Council Finance meetings, Work Sessions
with the full Council, developing an engagement plan, and ultimate implementation.
The following bullets highlight workplan considerations:
• Clearly define and articulate revenue needs and level of service considerations
• Thoroughly research funding options including impacts and the context of existing and potential new tax
measures (local and regionally)
• Recognize and work within the desire to keep overall tax burden as low as possible
• Consideration of existing dedicated tax renewals and associated election timelines
Timeline:
To date:
• December 2021: Begin discussions on identified funding gaps
• January 2022: Deeper dive with CFC on the projected gaps in each area
• March 2022: Meet with CFC to review all possible revenue mechanisms
• April 2022: Full Council work session to review work to date
• June 2022: CFC to discuss most feasible funding mechanisms and targeted funding amounts
Future:
• Refine acceptable funding mechanisms
• Consider any voter approved mechanisms along election options
Page 16 of 309
• Engagement efforts
Potential Funding Mechanisms
Numerous potential funding mechanisms have been discussed with Council Finance Committee. Of those
discussed previously, sales tax, property tax, user fees and excise taxes have emerged as the most feasible. The
table below demonstrates the potential revenue gain along with any annual impact to residents.
The mechanisms above include both taxes and fees. Taxes require voter approval and can be used for any public
purpose authorized by City Council. Fees do not require voter approval and they can only be imposed on those
likely to benefit from the service funded with the fee.
Targeted Funding Options
The identified funding gaps will likely be addressed utilizing multiple funding mechanisms.
For demonstration, staff has drafted five scenarios within the PowerPoint which target a diversity of funding
sources totaling amounts between $10M and $40M. These scenarios are not intended to be final or
recommended options. They are intended to demonstrate the flexibility and variable means and ways to add
additional revenue to cover the identified gaps.
These scenarios do not tie a mechanism to a specific funding gap but instead focus solely on the funding
mechanisms and targeted funding amounts. Future meetings will focus on the distribution of funds and service
levels desired.
Proposed Next Steps
The staff project team will continue to meet and work with direction from Council Finance Committee to refine
options. Council touchpoints will include regular updates at Council Finance Committee and an upcoming Work
Session in the fall.
Page 17 of 309
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does Council Finance Committee have on revenue mechanisms?
2. What funding level does Council Finance Committee want to target?
3. Does Council Finance Committee agree with proposed next steps?
Julie Pignataro; I am fine – I would like to go for the highest level we might as well go big because we have a lot
of shortfalls
On slide 5 (see below) Were the choices made a result of the discussion with the full Council? I am not seeing
the connect
Ginny Sawyer; yes, both with this Committee and the full Council that some of those other options weren’t
received as viable or we didn’t get as much interest in those options. If we are mistaken – all of these are still on
the table but for today’s exercise we went with our traditional and standard options – we are better able to
anticipate how much revenue we would get from them.
Julie Pignataro; I felt with the Large Emitter’s Fee and the Carbon Tax we just weren’t given enough information
to make an educated guess on them.
Ginny Sawyer; we can revisit those – if I recall correctly, the large emitters who are required to report by the
state were less than a handful in the city
Page 18 of 309
Julie Pignataro; I am good with the bigger chunk and no questions on the next steps
Emily Francis; I agree with Julie, I didn’t think the large emitter fee was taken off the table. At the work session,
we were providing an update to Council and the community on what we were talking about instead of a hard
no. I think Council is still interested in the Large Emitter Fee regardless of how it fits into meeting the funding
gaps. I wonder if this could be done more quickly and separately – instead of having it be part of our overall
funding – it seems like a different thing – more heavy industrial impact
Excise tax - is that usually on sugar sweetened beverages or tobacco?
Travis Storin; we also see that for marijuana and gas. The highway tax is an excise tax that we all pay at the
pump. But you are correct, it is most often used as a form of a ‘sin’ tax. We have also talked about packaging
and whether we would levy that kind of tax against plastic containers versus aluminum or glass containers as an
option, however, it is usually attached to the good and not the packaging.
Emly Francis; I am not supportive of excise taxes as I think they disproportionately impact lower income
communities more. I don’t know if an excise tax that would kick in over a certain dollar amount is feasible for
example the purchase of a new car over a certain dollar amount
John Duval; I would have to investigate that more, but I do think it is a possibility since it is a tax. You probably
can make it somewhat progressive. I don’t think it would be considered an income tax which municipalities
cannot impose. Specific to a certain value for luxury cars – excise tax on luxury cars. I will look into this.
It is in the state constitution that we cannot impose an income tax. So that is one of the things with certain
taxes, we need to be careful how we calculate and collect them and make sure they do not cross that line.
Travis Storin; around excise tax, we have heard the input from this committee loud and clear around
disproportionate impacts and that is where the thinking spurred around looking at plastic versus other types of
containers and marijuana - thinking that doesn’t have quite the same demographic impact as alcohol, tobacco or
sugar sweetened beverage would. Kelly has brought up some valid concerns around what that means to black
market type activities and Jim Lenderts, our marijuana enforcement officer would be happy to come to a future
Council Finance Committee meeting if that is a discussion we want to explore in greater detail.
Emily Francis; if we do have more information about the marijuana part and the impacts, I know that Denver has
passed some as well - that data would be useful for a future meeting. I am still hesitant on the packaging - I
think it is a good incentive, but I don’t think it is incentive enough for the market to change to offer alternative
packaging. More information here would be helpful in that space.
Finance committee had also requested that we look at a higher fee or tax based on the size of your home
(square feet) – have we included any of that as well?
John Duval; I have not heard of a mil being applied to only a larger home (square footage or a certain appraised
value), but it follows along with the idea of a luxury tax. We could look into that and see. On the fee issue, a
higher fee for a greater square footage, we already have a capital expansion fees that are based on square
footage. The higher the square footage the higher the fee. In assessing a fee, we have to calculate in a way that
is reasonably related to the services that are provided to the fee payer. If we can make a connection between
greater square footage to the fee payer getting more benefit then It is theoretically possible. We could look at
that.
Page 19 of 309
Emily Francis; I think Boulder has an increased fee for larger homes.
Travis Storin; I am presuming that this committee and by extension the full Council - that whichever mechanisms
are selected, there is going to be a desire to devise the types of mechanisms that would defray costs to
disproportionately low-income populations – that is probably further down the process than we are right now
For example, If there is a desire around a ¼ cent sales tax, then we can really start to unpack what are the ways
we can defray the impact that might have on disadvantaged populations.
Emily Francis; I guess my hesitancy is in choosing and then going down the path as it would be hard to go back
as opposed to having preliminary information before selecting makes more sense to me.
I am with the middle or the higher category. My concern with the higher category is the high annual increase
per resident – middle category is $95 net increase versus a $200 increase for the larger bucket. If there are
more options under the higher funding option ($30M-$40M). I would take the lowest one off of the table and
focus on the other two categories. The next steps are fine. More information on the marijuana would be useful
Hesitant about packaging – market needs to change.
Timeline – what is our estimated goal of when we are thinking about getting something on the ballot?
Ginny Sawyer; looking at the options of when we could and then identifying what Council would like to put
forward first. If we do a new dedicated or raise the sales tax or an excise tax, or a property tax - all those would
have to go to the voters. So right now, it is landing on what are those preferred mechanisms and which makes
sense and how the timeline looks - a lot will depend on November - if we eliminate an election, that will change
the landscape as well.
Kelly Ohlson; this is the most complex problem we have dealt with by far.
I thought staff was going to try to narrow those ranges on each of the four categories and then next to it,
provide a feel in general of what we might get for that. Our goal in this category is this much money and this is
approximately what you get for that amount. Is each of these categories going to have a specific funding
source? If you get $xx out of a 3 mil increase, does some go to affordable housing and some to transit?
Ginny Sawyer; in an effort to simplify this and break it off in chunks - what we tried to look at which mechanisms
and how much we think the community will tolerate. If we do like the idea of a new dedicated, then our next
step would be saying - here is what we think a new dedicated will bring in, how do we want to distribute these
funds amidst our needs.. Maybe we should change our approach and look at how much money we want to put
in each area and back into it that. As you said, this is complex, and this is one approach we took today.
Kelly Ohlson; You probably aren’t going to ask for four increases on the same ballot. The reason it is complex is
that you probably want to mix and match whatever funding sources we were successful at - to go into those
various categories because, otherwise, some of the categories we have identified could get zero dollars and
some could get 80% of their dollars.
Travis Storin; I think what you are describing Kelly, is how and to what extent will this funding meet our priorities
and what are the outcomes that these dollars would drive. That is the critical path – that work does need to be
a part of this equation. The approach today is around what are the tools we think are in play from the tolerance
approach that Ginny mentioned - at some point, we will have to develop - for the tools that are selected as
preferred by this committee, do we want to go the prescriptive route as was done for KFCG
where we have prescriptive percentages going to services by that exact percentage or is it more open ended –
like the CCIP where we develop a list of projects - this is the list for this ballot period and these funds can only be
Page 20 of 309
used for these projects OR is it more open ended – it can only be used for these four categories but in a
percentage that Council sees fit from budget year to budget year. Most assuredly, there will need to be a
conversation on how and if we are narrowing down each of these funding sources to very specific uses or a
broader set of criteria that Council wishes to adopt - no bones about it - that is critical path.
Kelly Ohlson; I thought I was favoring as one of the options, moving the street maintenance sales tax over to a
monthly user fee on the utility bill - which would essentially free up another ¼ cent for additional expenditures –
and be less regressive then adding another ¼ cent as it looks like the user fee is per resident and I am thinking it
should say per household.
Travis Storin; $10 monthly user fee would be per household NOT per resident.
Kelly Ohlson; unless we adjust for low-income households, this now looks more regressive than a sales tax
increase where you also get the revenue from visitors to Fort Collins - I was a fan of moving the street tax to a
fee - I am not there at this moment but will remain open. I want to refine the gaps of what we are actually going
to spend and simply that.
I don’t believe that the polluter tax was to be taken off the table – I think there was a difference of opinion, but
there is a serious majority that would want that in the discussion phase of this. It could be related to
climate change, to pollution, to the chemicals related to climate change. I would prefer something broader so
we could address our air quality and climate change at the same time, and I would like that back in play.
I would expand it to many more emitters, more types of pollutants and polluters, climate change.
That is something we could pass, and it supports our climate and air quality goals.
I would like to know how much we need in each of those areas and what we will get for it knowing that it may
change. I don’t think we took anything off the list. I am more interested in the property tax and the polluter tax.
We have needs - let the voters decide. I am more in the middle category but am also open to the larger
category.
Travis Storin - Summary of Discussion
• Our next step is coming back to Council Finance probably in September.
• We will bring back preliminary ways to defray the impact to lower income households
• Keep the polluter tax in the mix and bring back some considerations for the committee for a large emitter
fee.
• As we are reaching a consensus on the targeted funding levels, how much of each priority gets funded and
what can be specially accomplished across the four categories at those levels of funding
• Support for the high and middle levels of funding (see slide below). Staff to come back with what the
outcomes are that can be achieved in each of those funding cases across the four priorities.
Page 21 of 309
Kelly Ohlson; I don’t think we are limiting it to a large emitter fee because this is only 3-5 entities. (25 metric
tons is the standard for being a high emitter). We want other options explored in that category
C. Park Design Guidelines & Standards
Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director
Mike Calhoon, Parks Director
Victoria Shaw, Community Services Finance Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Parks operation & maintenance costs have increased over time due to several factors including price
escalation/inflation, increased park usage, new amenities, and more inclusive design. The Parks & Recreation
Plan adopted in 2021 provides the framework for development of the city parks system and recommendations
both for existing and new parks. The plan includes key recommendations, park classification typologies, park
design guidelines, typical amenities and level of service standards that guide the development of new parks, as
well as inform improvements to existing parks. Recently constructed parks have incorporated many cost saving
strategies to reduce long-term maintenance costs, however net maintenance costs have still increased.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What additional information is Council Finance committee seeking regarding current park design guidelines and
standards?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
A memo to Council members was provided in the council packet in support of the Sustainable Funding work
session on April 12, 2022 (Attachment 2). The memo provided an overview of current park maintenance and
design practices, along with corresponding cost trends. This item provides additional detail on park design
methodology, including standards and guidelines for parks.
Page 22 of 309
Maintenance Cost Trends and Cost Reduction Strategies in New Parks
Parks maintenance costs are influenced by multiple variables, including the size of the park, number of
amenities, level of usage, and complexity of design. The Parks department tracks costs for staff time and direct
costs by park amenity, and breaks out maintenance costs for neighborhood parks into the following categories:
Overall, the ownership costs of neighborhood parks are categorized as follows:
• Size/Acreage of park: about 75% of park maintenance costs are tracked by the size/acreage of the park, such
as water management, turf care, and trash & recycling, and snow/ice removal costs.
• Major features: 15% of average costs are attributed to whether the park has a playground and/or bathroom.
These amenities require ongoing maintenance, but the costs will not scale with the size of the park.
• Volume of other amenities: 10% of average costs are driven by the quantity of fields, courts, or shelters.
In addition to inflation and price escalation pressures, newer features have also contributed to increased costs.
For example, the inclusion of a loop walk has become standard among newer parks. The loop walk is one of the
most used features by park visitors and provides improved access for Parks maintenance vehicles. However,
these wider walks also require additional snow/ice removal which adds to ongoing maintenance costs.
In newer parks, numerous strategies to reduce maintenance costs have been incorporated, which include:
• More advanced, higher efficiency irrigation systems, resulting in decreased water usage and more efficient
operations
• Post-tensioned concrete slabs for courts, significantly reducing ongoing court maintenance, increasing court
life span, and reducing subsequent life cycle replacement costs.
• Large native seeded areas in parks, resulting in reduced irrigation demand after establishment
• Wider walks for convenient parks maintenance vehicle access and snow removal.
• 2-year maintenance and establishment conducted by contractor, ensuring park is in good working order
when Parks maintenance staff takes over.
• Raw water usage significantly reduces irrigation costs over the life of the park
• Crime Prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles to allow for seamless access and safety
In some cases, short term maintenance costs may increase. For example, native vegetation buffer areas require
additional care and attention during the establishment period, typically in the first 5-8 years. After that,
maintenance efforts for native areas subside and additional savings is incurred through reduced irrigation
demand and required maintenance for these areas.
Page 23 of 309
Parks & Recreation Plan Overview
An update to the Parks & Recreation Plan was completed in 2021, providing a robust vision and framework for
development of parks and recreation facilities, programs, and amenities city wide. The plan is available here:
https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/ There are three primary parts to the plan that inform park design
standards:
1. Park Classifications, Guidelines and Typical Amenities. This section provides guidelines for development of
parks, including 7 distinct park classifications, guidelines for developing each of these 7 park types, and
typical amenities found in each park type. Design Guidelines are found on p.105 of the Parks & Recreation
Plan.
2. Level of Service Standards. A city-wide level of service analysis identifies where key park amenities are
needed today or will be needed as the city continues to grow. Both population and access standards are
provided for major park amenities. Level of Service Standards are provided on p. 161 of the Parks &
Recreation Plan.
3. Policy Framework. This section identifies a path forward for parks and recreation in Fort Collins, including 10
goals, with specific actions and methods for each goal. The policy framework can be found on p. 211 of the
Parks & Recreation Plan.
Park Classifications, Guidelines and Typical Amenities
In the past, only 2 primary classifications of parks were identified: neighborhood and community parks. The
2021 updated Parks & Recreation plan provides 7 total park classification types, both to clarify how existing
parks function and to provide guidelines for future park typologies to meet the needs of current and future
residents. For each park classification type, the Parks & Recreation plan provides a description, approximate
size, anticipated length of visit, means of access, typical amenities, and a design guideline diagram outlining
approximate use zones within the park. These zones of use include intensive use areas, programmable gathering
spaces, recreation areas, casual use spaces, and natural system areas. Although not prescriptive, these
guidelines provide a framework for new park development, as well as a tool for evaluating updates or
improvements to existing parks. The 7 park classification types include:
o Community Park
o Schoolside Park
o Neighborhood Park
o Urban Park
o Plaza
o Mini Park
Level of Service Standards
Level of service standards help guide decisions about how many recreational amenities are needed and where.
Population-based standards address how many amenities are needed and access-based standards address
where amenities are needed, both now and in the future.
• Population Based Standards. Level of service expressed as a ratio of number of amenities to population. The
current ratio is compared to a recommended ratio, which indicates whether additional amenities are
needed
• Several data points were considered in setting the recommended level of service standards, including
the current level of service, the level of service of 5 peer cities (Aurora, Boise, Boulder, Madison,
Minneapolis), national participation trends and community priorities.
Page 24 of 309
• Depending on the park amenity, some data supports raising the current level of service, while other data
supports maintaining or lowering the current level of service.
• Access Standards. Level of service standards expressed as a travel time within which residents should be
able to get to a particular park amenity by a particular mode of transportation. Access standards indicate
where new amenities, or better ways of accessing existing amenities, are needed.
• Resident expectations of how close park amenities should be to their homes – and the City’s ability to
provide these amenities, vary by type of amenity. Two tiers of access standards have been identified:
o 10-Minute Walk Standard – for amenities that have broad drop-in use, and are well used by
children, including rectangular fields, playgrounds, and basketball courts
o 5-Minute Drive Standard – for amenities that are used by a subset of residents, including pickleball
courts, dog parks, community gardens, and diamond fields
Used in combination, the population-based standards provide a snapshot of the level of service provided by
current park amenities and a road map for addressing the number and location of amenities in the future. The
level of service standards can be used to help prioritize which actions will increase equitable access to
recreational amenities for the most residents.
Level of service standards can and should change over time as industry trends change and demographic trends
of the community change. Beginning on p. 168 of the Parks & Recreation Plan, a series of illustrative maps are
provided identifying where new park amenities are needed city wide based on the level of service criteria.
Policy Framework
Key recommendations from the Policy Framework regarding park design standards include:
• Provide equitable access to parks through expanding the usability of existing parks, serve growing and
under-served communities in established parts of the city by securing new parkland, and build new parks to
serve newly developing parts of the city. Park spaces should be intentionally designed to support casual,
impromptu use. Ensure that every park has a framework plan to identify the intended use and in what areas
of the park those intended uses are meant to occur (Goal 1, Method 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, Action 1.1.1).
• Protect and enhance natural, historic, and cultural resources in parks. This is accomplished through
integrating native plants with high pollinator value to increase the ecological value and biodiversity of parks
and by prioritizing the use of raw water or other irrigation systems that conserve water resources and build
resiliency (Goal 4, Actions 4.1.3, 4.1.4)
• Elevate the design of parks by developing a unified design language that is flexible enough to allow for
individual park identities. (Goal 10, Method 10.1)
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What additional information is Council Finance committee seeking regarding current park design guidelines and
standards?
Kelly Ohlson; when was the Parks Master Plan adopted?
Kurt Friesen; it was adopted in January of 2021.
Page 25 of 309
Kelly Ohlson; do we really need all those new parks and if so, why?
So, we don’t continue digging deeper holes in the future for operations and maintenance
Kurt Friesen; I think that is a question of prioritization and that is really what the plan is all about.
Level of service standards (some examples shown include 5 min drive / 10 min walk)
If we don’t want to meet those level of service standards, then we could probably reduce the number of parks.
We could think about how many amenities are appropriate in parks. We are trying to achieve a base line level of
service across the city from the equity perspective.
Kelly Ohlson; Slide 4 (see below) great pie chart showing Costs of Neighborhood Park Maintenance. Have I seen
this information / pie chart for community parks?
Victoria Shaw; we have included this information (pie chart) in a memo that went out to the full Council – but
this slide (above) is just for neighborhood parks.
Kelly Ohlson; Do we have this slide for Community Park Maintenance?
Victoria Shaw: we do not but are happy to put one together
Kelly Ohlson; that would be helpful – what jumped out to me was 46% for turf and water -
almost half - I don’t know how you reduce trash and recycling and restrooms and then you are down to 6% or
less for the different categories – looks like any future cost savings is in the turf and water piece
Mike Calhoon; you are spot on - new design standards for parks include softer edges and less turf. We are being
very thoughtful about where the turf goes and minimizing that because that is a cost driver for us.
Kelly Ohlson; why do we use treated water in so many parks?
Page 26 of 309
Kurt Friesen; we strive to provide raw water wherever we can - all but one of our community parks use raw
water but with neighborhood parks it gets a little more challenging – within our city water district boundary, we
have a fairly high amount that are on raw water but once we move outside of that boundary - there is a cost
benefit analysis to be done simply given what it takes to deliver a small amount of raw water to a small park –
We aren’t seeing that is makes financial sense to do that (the benefit is bigger for larger parks)
Cresent Park is on raw water -
Mike Calhoon; driven by the geographic location of the parks in relation to where the ditches are – that is where
you get into challenges. We may have a gap for a park, but we may not have an irrigation ditch that can feed it.
Physical restrictions present challenges
Kelly Ohlson; when you mention integrate native plants and plants with high pollinator value - to increase
ecological value and biodiversity of parks (which I am all for)
You don’t mention any other diverse tree plantings or habitat plantings for wildlife – are we just simplifying for
examples – do you look at other plantings for other things than pollinators?
Kurt Friesen; we are thinking holistically about those native zones as ecosystems - we want to select plants that
work together whether it be a ground cover up to the trees so the plants that we introduce on those edges
particularly in the neighborhood parks– there are trees, shrubs and grasses that fit within that low water use
perspective and provide all the things you are mentioning.
Emily Francis; this is so helpful to see the whole picture – with the same caveat as Kelly, I love parks and all the
benefits they provide; however, we keep digging ourselves into this hole.
What is the city’s goal for levels of service and how residents are ranking things?
Kurt Friesen; level of service is really the analysis presented - several factors; peer city analysis, how do we
measure up to other communities and what they are doing, participation rates fluctuate so that factors in, and it
speaks to preferences, the main thing that informs that portion of the analysis is the statistically valid survey
that was done as part of our Parks & Recreation Plan as well as stakeholder outreach. Those are the pieces
that really inform the level of service, how we want to provide park amenities, how many and where they go
and then when it comes to satisfaction the annual survey goes out city wide.
Kelly DiMartino; Emily, if part of your question, do we have a target for resident satisfaction in our survey
numbers - we do not have a standard target that we set for resident satisfaction. Some of our departments
through our Community Dashboard or our Strategy Maps that we do, they do set targets, but we don’t have a
standard target established.
Emily Francis; thank you – I think the 94% satisfaction level with parks is great and we have many competing
priorities, so you look at – I was curious about whether all departments are aiming for the same satisfaction
level as that is what dictates where our funding is allocated.
When we talk about those access-based standards, do we consider the type of housing that is in that area -
when we talk about equity in the plan, apartments and townhomes and parts of town that have a higher
concentration of those would need parks with more open space – when we talk about access-based standards,
is that taken into account?
Page 27 of 309
Kurt Friesen; I think the 10-minute walk speaks to that directly and is a great equity index for us - regardless of
where I might live in the city, if I can walk to a park that is a great equalizer and something we all want to be able
to do. If we can achieve that metric, everyone should have equal access to that amenity.
Emily Francis; I am going to politely disagree with you - I have a yard and space – apartment complexes don’t
have that luxury, so when we talk about access to amenities and use of space – the housing type greatly impacts
how people use space and parks differently. When we are talking about how we build community, where we
build larger community parks as opposed to smaller, neighborhood pocket parks, to me, if we are prioritizing
and equity is at the forefront, the larger community parks and more access to space would be located near
higher density units. When we talk about prioritization and standards and how people use space, we really need
to consider housing type and neighborhood access. Twin Silos is a beautiful park – a lot of the homes in the area
have huge yards whereas Hickory Mobile Home Park has small homes and a tiny park with very low amenities.
Doesn’t seem equitable if we look at housing type. To the bigger question – do we need to build all of these
parks and then prioritizing them – how are we looking at how we prioritize where we build parks and what type
we are building?
Do we have a policy or standard on the percentage of new parks we are building that utilize native seed or the
more natural system use, or does it just depend on the park?
Kurt Friesen; level of service analysis – for new parks, we are trying to limit turf to recreational fields.
The level of service analysis, having recreational fields is a need city wide. When we are designing new parks,
we are incorporating a field with turf area only to the boundaries of that field. The plan also speaks to revisiting
older parks – maybe reducing the irrigation footprint for those parks by incorporating some of those native edge
conditions. Every new park that we have built in the last eight years has been largely native except for that
irrigated turf field.
Emily Francis; my feedback would be - as we are looking at this very large funding gap, we really do need to
think about how many parks we need, the level of service, where and how many we are building,
how much of the park’s costs are in our control (water and turf management) and how we are changing where
we are going with that. Can you remind me if we take school fields into account when we look at access?
Kurt Friesen; that is a key part of our discussion around our parks and recreation planning effort – trying to build
better relationships with the schools is key in unlocking access for certain community members.
Some school playgrounds and fields are not fully accessible.. If we could incorporate a better relationship with
the school district and work in a way to make more those more accessible really helps us meet that the service
levels standard. We want to have a better relationship with the school district
Page 28 of 309
Kurt Friesen; (see above) the orange circle indicates a school site that would fill a level of service gap (basketball
court) without building anything new.
Access standard of universal access can be met if we can work with the school district on granting access.
Some schools lock the gates and there is no access. Lower the level of service – the 3.7 includes the schools
Julie Pignataro; this has been super informative - I live close to Spencer Park and I have never seen a single
person standing or sitting or using – there is nothing there except an old milkhouse
Mike Calhoon; that would have been considered a mini park in our old classification system
When we did our costing years ago – we broke them into community and neighborhood parks and internally the
staff would refer to the Freedom Squares and Spencer’s as mini parks. When we did the parks and recreation
master plan and we came up with these classifications, it was officially designated.
Julie Pignataro; is there an easy answer to how we got to where we are today where there is such a shortfall?
Was it a shortfall for operations and maintenance that we are trying to make up for?
Mike Calhoon; I’d like to break the answer into three pieces;
1) Parks are purchased, designed, and built with impact fees.
We are pretty good impact fees when parks are designed and built
2) O&M money for the day-to-day operations.
We are pretty good with O&M even though it keeps going up because we add more parks.
Page 29 of 309
3) Infrastructure replacement money which we are talking about in the sustainable funding effort
Our gap is here - we tried to work hard over the last 20 years
We established the Lifecycle Fund and we initially put $500K aside for infrastructure replacement.
We tried many times to incrementally increase that, but we never could increase it because of
competing demands on the budget. Right now, we are at $660K
One reason for that is that we added a 1$ fee on reservations which brings in about $40K per year
We have not been able to keep up with funding this piece.
ACTION ITEM:
Julie Pignataro; reiterating what Kelly said earlier - it would be so helpful to have a slide like we have for
neighborhood parks for all types of parks including how much new parks cost.
And for the Infrastructure replacement piece - How long do you anticipate it would take to get there- so these
things are on the radar way ahead of time.
Do we have an idea of how many of these different types of parks will need to be created?
Kurt Friesen; in the plan, it is around 20. Many of the parks were recommended in the 2008 plan
(see slide below) green circle
Right now, that is the focus of my team – we want to make sure that we get the parks that have been planned
for years. The other parts are about filling the gaps and many of those are within existing developments – it will
be a lot harder for us to find land. That is what we are prioritizing right now, is seeking to make sure that we are
meeting the goals of the 2008 plan and then focusing on some of the internal parks which may be smaller. We
want to think about equity and how we serve the community appropriately.
Page 30 of 309
Even a bench at Spencer Park would be great - maybe there are limitations due to the historic milk house there
Looking at your map my district #2 looks like a park desert - we do have a lot of schools so maybe that is where
people spend a lot of their time.
Kelly Ohlson; (see slide 17 above) If I heard correctly, some of the big circles in the SE part of town may never
come to fruition due to lack of land. Still trying to close the gaps on some geographic deserts but those parks
are not necessarily going to be built – a wish list
Kurt Friesen; I wouldn’t consider it a wish list - as with any master plan this is aspirational – the ideal state for
the city of Fort Collins. Right now, we are prioritizing those that were identified in the 2008 plan. They are not
in a specific area of town – so that is priority #1. Then infill – then we start to explore new park locations as
illustrated in the orange circles (see above)
Kelly Ohlson; I know we just adopted a Parks Master Plan – asking for evolution as we go forward knowing there
are some restraints and really looking at what type of housing is there and who needs the bigger parks the most.
We can all get better collectively on making sure we are looking at that. A lot of people have more resources to
access parks – focus on people who don’t have access to – lower income communities – make that a high
priority. Evolution of thought on a fairly quick timetable when decisions have to be made.
Kurt Friesen; that is definitely part of our thinking - we are impact fee driven – approaching our design
holistically
Page 31 of 309
Kelly Ohlson; 10 years ago – the people we contracted with, and our own employees were mowing right up to
the edge of waterways – not good for the wildlife and more expensive - fertilizing right up to the edge as well -
Do we still have the induvial maintenance maps for each park?
Mike Calhoon; we have maps for each of our parks - and incorporated ‘no mow zones’ to provide those buffers
in a more casual way than what we would do with park design.
We used to mow Edora and Spring Creek right to the edge of the water - we don’t do that anymore and in fact
use the maps as a training tool. We also address the ‘why’ by creating those buffers we are filtering
stormwater, reducing our irrigation footprint, providing pollinator habitat. We explain this when we are doing
training with our staff.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Travis Storin; HR Memo 401(a) was included in your packets. We are providing this to Council Finance before it
goes to the full Council in case there are questions. I labeled something of a formality in keeping our retirement
plans compliant with Pension Protection Act requirements. Historically we have given Council Finance the
opportunity to review before it goes to the full Council.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm
Page 32 of 309
Page 33 of 309
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager
John Duval, Deputy City Attorney
Date: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Inclusion of Paradigm property into Rudolph Farm Metro District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider the inclusion of the Paradigm property into the Rudolph
Farm Metropolitan District (Metro District) located at Prospect and I-25. The developer of the
Paradigm property is also seeking through the City’s land use process to change the land use mix
for the Paradigm property. This inclusion would allow the District to levy on the Paradigm
property a Debt Service Mill Levy of 50 mills and an Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy of
20 mills, or a total of 70 mills, which property taxes would be used by the Metro District to fund
the construction, operation and maintenance of public improvements. There is already levied on
the Paradigm property by the I-25/Prospect Interchange Metro District a 10 mill levy to be used
to reimburse the City for a share of the City’s funding of the recent CDOT improvements to the
I-25/Prospect interchange. It is unclear what public improvements the Metro District would fund
related to the Paradigm property.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee support the inclusion of the Paradigm property in the
Metro District?
What additional information would be helpful when staff presents this item to City Council?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On March 6, 2018, City Council approved a series of resolutions related to the funding of
interchange improvements at Prospect and I-25. These resolutions resulted in the following:
• Approval and authorization of a Binding Agreement pertaining to the development of
Interstate Highway 25 and Prospect Road Interchange and a related Capital Pledge
Agreement
• Approval of the I-25/Prospect Interchange Metro District covering all properties adjacent
to the I-25/Prospect interchange
Page 34 of 309
• Approval of the Rudolph Farms Metro District at the northeast corner of Prospect and I-
25
• Approval of the Gateway at Prospect Metro District at the northwest corner of Prospect
and I-25
• Approval of the SW Prospect I-25 Metro District at the southwest corner of Prospect and
I-25
Approval of these agreements and Metro Districts resulted in the City, the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT), the owners of the parcels of private property at the four corners of the
interchange (Property Owners) and the Town of Timnath sharing in the costs to fund
improvements to the I-25/Prospect interchange to be built concurrently with the expansion of I-
25. By rebuilding the I-25/Prospect interchange at the same time as the I-25 expansion, the
project was able to realize efficiencies that resulted in $7 million in reduced project costs. This
also accelerated the timeline for improvements to the interchange.
These actions also created the Metro Districts at each corner of the I-25/Prospect interchange
with the exception of the southeast corner. The southeast corner of I-25/Prospect is known as the
Paradigm property. The approved Metro Districts allow for funding of necessary infrastructure
and public improvements to serve future development within the Districts. These Metro Districts
pre-date the City’s Metro District policy requiring public benefits from Metro Districts where
more than 10% of the assessed value is residential.
These actions also created the I-25/Prospect Interchange Metro District (Interchange Metro
District). All of the Property Owners’ properties are included within the boundaries of the
Interchange Metro District. The purpose of the Interchange Metro District is to generate tax and
fee revenues from the Property Owners’ properties to reimburse the City for the Property
Owners’ share of the costs to fund the CDOT improvements to the I-25/Prospect Interchange.
The estimated total project cost of the I-25/Prospect interchange improvements was $31 million.
Of this, $24 million was for base design while the remaining $7 million represents the City’s
required urban design elements. CDOT shared in 50 percent of the base design portion, or $12
million. The remaining $19 million was split between the City, Property Owners, and Timnath at
43%, 43%, and 14%, respectively. Timnath’s share is based on traffic studies with the City and
Property Owners splitting the remaining costs.
Table 1
Partners Allocation of Costs (Millions)
Page 35 of 309
On March 5, 2019, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 30, 2019, appropriating $19,099,945 to
fund all non-CDOT costs associated with the I-25/Prospect interchange improvements. The City
would seek repayment from the Property Owners within the District and from the Town of
Timnath. The Binding Agreement requires each party highlighted in the table above to pay its
share of the costs associated with the interchange improvements. The Capital Pledge Agreement
outlines the terms of repayment for the Owners’ Share of the project costs to be paid, in effect,
through the Interchange Metro District.
The Capital Pledge Agreement identifies the sources of revenue from the Interchange Metro
District that will be used to reimburse the City for the Property Owners’ share of the costs. These
revenue sources include:
• Imposition of a property tax mill levy of 10 mills on all taxable property within the
Interchange Metro District
• 0.75% public improvement fee (PIF) on all retail purchases made within the Interchange
Metro District, net of any reasonable administrative fees for collection by the City
• Impact fee collected at the time of issuance of a vertical building permit based on land
use within the Interchange Metro District
Per the Capital Pledge Agreement, the Property Owners’ share is payable on or before December
1 of each year in twenty equal installments of $479,000 beginning December 1, 2019. At the end
each month, the property owners must remit any PIF or impact fees collected during the
preceding month. In the event that the Property Owners are unable to pay $479,000 by December
1, the deficit accrues interest at a rate of 4.25%. The current deficit of the Property Owners’
share is $958,622.
Rudolph Farms Background:
The Rudolph Farms property lies in three zone districts: General Commercial (CG), Industrial
(I), and Urban Estate (UE). The Rudolph Farms Metro District Service Plan contemplates
Total Fort Collins Property
Owners Timnath
Overpass Cost $19.00 $8.25 $8.25 $2.50
% Share Cost 100% 43% 43% 13%
Less ROW Credit $0.50 $0.00 $0.50 $0.00
Less TCEF Credit $1.40 $0.70 $0.70 $0.00
Debt Obligation $17.10 $7.55 $7.05 $2.50
% Share Payments 100% 44% 41% 15%
Partners Share Allocation
Page 36 of 309
development that would conform to the permitted uses of those zone districts. Table 2 below
shows the approved land use mix in the Rudolph Farms Metro District Service Plan. The land
use mix for Rudolph Farms in the I-25/Prospect Interchange Service Plan mirrors the land use
mix shown in the Rudolph Farms Service Plan.
PNE Prospect Holdings LLC (PNE) acquired Rudolph Farms in 2021. PNE is looking to
potentially acquire the Paradigm property for inclusion in the Rudolph Farms Metro District. In
addition to including the Paradigm property, PNE contemplates changes to the land use mix and
has two potential concepts in mind as per Table 2.
Table 2 – Rudolph Farms Land Use Mix Comparison
Service Plan Concept 1 Concept 2
% Change -
Concept 1
% Change -
Concept 2
Retail 107,850 121,904 127,900 13.03% 18.59%
Hotel
(Rooms) 240 0 0 -100.00% -100.00%
Convenience 5,350 0 0 -100.00% -100.00%
Office 0 80,320 153,400 100.00% 100.00%
Industrial 831,150 440,500 300,500 -47.00% -63.85%
Residential
(Units) 60 563 685 838.33% 1041.67%
Self Storage - 96,951 96,951 100.00% 100.00%
Paradigm Background:
On January 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Paradigm Overall
Development Plan (ODP). The purpose of an ODP is to establish general planning and
development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple
submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent
submittals. The approved Paradigm ODP permits retail, drive-thru restaurant, hotel, convenience
store with gas station, restaurant, office, and warehouse uses. The I-25/Prospect Interchange
Metro District Service Plan contemplates Paradigm developing 114,000 square feet of retail and
a 100-room hotel, mirroring the approved ODP.
In acquiring Paradigm, PNE looks to change the land use mix of Paradigm. On June 22, PNE
met with City staff for a Preliminary Design Review about changing the land use mix for
Paradigm. Preliminary Design Review is a pre-application meeting where City staff highlights
potential issues with the proposed development prior to the applicant submitting a formal
development application with the City. PNE proposes two hotels, two pad sites for fast casual
restaurants, a convenience store, and a parcel for multi-family. There is not enough detail in the
Preliminary Design Review application to compare the proposed land use mix with that
approved in the Overall Development Plan and I-25/Prospect Interchange Service Plan.
Inclusion of Paradigm property into Rudolph Farms Metro District:
Page 37 of 309
On June 7, 2022, legal counsel for PNE submitted a formal letter requesting inclusion of the
Paradigm property into the Rudolph Farms Metro District. Per Section V(A)(4) of the Rudolph
Farms Service Plan, inclusion of new property to the Metro District requires approval by City
Council. Including Paradigm into the Rudolph Farms Metro District would allow the Metro
District to issue bonds to fund public improvements required to serve the Paradigm property. The
bonds would be repaid by placing a mill levy on the Paradigm property. The Rudolph Farms
Service Plan projects the need for a Debt Service Mill Levy of 50 mills and an Operations and
Maintenance Mill Levy of 20 mills, or a total of 70 mills. The inclusion of the Paradigm property
into the Metro District would yield the following necessary updates to the Rudolph Farms Metro
District:
• List of public improvements required to serve the Metro District inclusive of Paradigm
• Development summary
• Exhibits of public infrastructure required to serve Paradigm
• Financial plan
None of the amendments listed above require Council approval.
As mentioned above, Paradigm also contributes to the I-25/Prospect Interchange improvements.
While the change in land use has little impact on the Rudolph Farms Metro District, these land
use changes have more implications for the Interchange Metro District. The I-25/Prospect
Interchange Service Plan contemplated the Paradigm property developing 114,000 square feet of
retail and a 100-room hotel. The amended plans show two hotels, two pad sites for fast casual
restaurants, a convenience store, and a parcel for multi-family. This presents some opportunities
and potential risks for the City to collect the Property Owners’ share of costs associated with the
I-25/Prospect interchange improvements.
Opportunities:
• More feasible development plan – the updated development plans reflect updated
development ideas to meet current market demand. Paradigm has sat vacant since
approval of the ODP in 2004. This is an indication that the approved ODP is not well
positioned to meet current market demands and may never come to fruition.
• Faster revenue generation – a more feasible development plan could yield faster revenue
generation for the interchange improvements. There is already a sizable deficit for the
Property Owners’ share and this change to the land use mix could help the City recover
some of its costs quicker.
Risks:
• Lower assessment rates – In Colorado, properties are taxed based on a percent of its
assessed value. Commercial properties are taxed at 29% while residential properties are
taxed at 7.15%. The updated plans for Paradigm would have 6.2 acres of residential uses.
This means the residential component of Paradigm would need to have an assessed value
four times that of a commercial property to yield the same revenue from the mill levy
imposed by the Interchange Metro District.
Page 38 of 309
• Lower PIF revenues – Another source of revenue in the Capital Pledge Agreement is the
imposition of a 0.75% PIF on retail sales within the Interchange Metro District.
Residential properties do not generate retail sales. By converting a portion of Paradigm
property to residential from retail, the result will be less PIF revenue.
Without additional detail on how and when the Paradigm property might develop, it is uncertain
how much the changes in Paradigm’s land use mix will affect the City’s ability to recover from
the Property Owners their share of costs for the interchange improvements.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
1. Letter Requesting Paradigm’s Inclusion into Rudolph Farms Metro District
2. Rudolph Farms Metro District Service Plan
3. I-25/Prospect Interchange Metro District Service Plan
4. Binding Agreement and Capital Pledge Agreement
Page 39 of 309
Inclusion of Paradigm into
Rudolph Farms Metro District
July 7, 2022
City Council Finance Committee
Clay Frickey – Redevelopment Program Manager
Page 40 of 309
2Background
2018 –City Council approves series of Metro Districts
•Purpose –fund I-25/Prospect interchange improvements
•Rudolph Farms Metro District
•NE corner I-25/Prospect
• I-25/Prospect Interchange Metro District
•Established cost sharing
2022 –PNE Prospect Holdings Purchases Rudolph Farms
•Seeks to include Paradigm
•Paradigm not in its own Metro District
Page 41 of 309
Vicinity Map 3
Page 42 of 309
4Interchange Cost & Cost Share
•Total Cost $31M
•Includes $7M for Urban Design
•CDOT $12M -50% of base design
•City/Property Owners/Timnath $19M
• FC = $8.25M
•Property Owners = $8.25M
•Timnath = $2.5M
Total FC Property Timnath
Overpass Cost 19.000$ 8.250$ 8.250$ 2.500$
TCEF Reduction 0.700$ 0.700$
Less ROW Value 0.500$
Debt Obligation 17.100$ 7.550$ 7.050$ 2.500$
% Share 44% 41% 15%
Borrow - Principle 17,100,000
Term 20
Interest 4.50%
Total FC Property Timnath
Payment Share $1,314,582 $580,415 541,977 192,190
Partners Share Allocation
Page 43 of 309
5Cost Sharing Agreement
Interchange Metro District
•Imposes min. 7.5000 Mill
•Authorizes up to $10.0 million in debt
•No Eminent Doman w/out Council Consent
•Capital Pledge Agreement
•Only debt allowed by plan
•Commits three revenue sources to
funding Owner’s Share
•District terminates upon full payment
Binding Agreement &
Capital Pledge
•Defines Owners Share
•Requires Consideration of Project Service
Plans
•Commits City to Funding
•Stipulates Revenue Sources
•Min. 7.500 up to 10.000 Mills (Metro)
•0.75% PIF (Covenant)
•Fees due at Construction (Metro)
Page 44 of 309
6Proposed Inclusion
•Would permit mill levies for Paradigm
•Debt Service Mill Levy = 50 mills
•Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy = 20 mills
• I-25/Prospect Interchange Mill Levy = 10 mills
•Total mill levy = 80 mills
Page 45 of 309
7Paradigm Land Use Changes
Approved Plan Proposed Plan
Page 46 of 309
8Opportunities and Risks
Opportunities:
•More feasible development plan
•Grounded in current market conditions
•Faster revenue generation
•Quick repayment of City
Risks:
•Lower assessment rates
•Potentially less revenue generation
•Lower PIF revenue generation
Page 47 of 309
9Questions for Council Finance Committee
Does the Council Finance Committee support the inclusion of the
Paradigm property in the Rudolph Farms Metro District?
What additional information would be helpful when staff presents this item
to City Council?
Page 48 of 309
June 7, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council of the City of Fort Collins
c/o John Duval, Deputy City Attorney, jduval@fcgov.com
Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Re: Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1 – 6
Request for Resolution Approval of Inclusion of Property
Dear Members of City Council:
Our firm is engaged as general counsel for Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
(collectively the “Districts”), which are located wholly within the City of Fort Collins (the “City”).
The Districts operate pursuant to the Consolidated Service Plan for Rudolph Farms Metropolitan
District Nos. 1 – 6 approved by City Council on March 6, 2018 via Resolution 2018-028 (the
“Service Plan”).
As background, the Districts were organized as part of a larger coordination effort in 2018
between the City and owners of the four properties in the quadrants immediately adjacent to the
Interstate Highway I-25 and Prospect Road (the “Interchange”) in order to share in the costs of
various public improvements related to the Interchange.
These cost sharing efforts included various pledged revenue obligations, including PIF
revenue, property tax revenue, and development fee revenue of the I-25/Prospect Interchange
Metropolitan District (the “Overlay District”) which boundaries include the four properties
adjacent to the Interstate. A map depicting the four properties and the boundaries of the Overlay
District is attached hereto as Attachment 1 (the “Overlay District Map”).
To further fund the highway interchange improvements, the property owners for the
properties identified as “FCIC/GAPA,” “CSURF,” and “LAAM” in the Overlay District Map
formed various smaller metropolitan districts: “FCIC/GAPA” property is within the project area
boundaries Gateway at Prospect Metropolitan District Nos. 1 – 7; “CSURF” is within the project
area boundaries SW Prospect I-25 Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7; and “LAAM” makes up the
boundaries of the Districts. The “Paradigm” property was not involved in the organization of a
special district and is currently only included in the boundaries of the Overlay District (the
“Paradigm Property”).
The Boards of Directors of the Districts have been approached by the underlying developer
within the Districts, PNE Prospect Road Holdings, LLC (“PNE”), which is under contract to
purchase an additional 15 acres of property within the Paradigm Property from Paradigm
Properties, LLC (“PP LLC”). The land survey plan of the Paradigm Property is attached hereto as
Attachment 2. PNE and PP LLC anticipate providing the Districts with a petition for inclusion as
Page 49 of 309
Re: Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1 – 6
Request for Resolution Approval of Inclusion of Property
June 7, 2022
2
provided in Section 32-1-401(1)(a), C.R.S., to include 6.2 acres of the Paradigm Property within
the boundaries of Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 4 (“District No. 4”) and 8.8 acres of
the Paradigm Property within the boundaries of Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 5
(“District No. 5”). A copy of the form of this petition is attached hereto as Attachment 3. District
No. 4 and District No. 5 would like to consider these inclusions in order to allow for the
coordinated and cohesive development of public improvements, however Section V.A.4. of the
Service Plan requires prior resolution approval of the City Council as follow:
Inclusion and Exclusion Limitation. The Districts shall be entitled to include within their
boundaries any property within the Project Area Boundaries without prior approval of the
City Council. The Districts shall also be entitled to exclude from their boundaries any
property within the Project Area Boundaries so far as, within a reasonable time thereafter,
the property is included within the boundaries of another District, and up on compliance
with the provisions of the Special District Act. All other inclusions or exclusions shall
require the prior resolution approval of the City Council, and if approved, shall not
constitute a material modification of this Service Plan.
If approved, District No. 4 and District No. 5 will complete the inclusion process in accordance
with the requirements set forth in Sections 32-1-401, et seq., C.R.S. A copy of District No. 4 and
District No. 5’s form of draft resolution and order regarding the inclusion of real property is
attached hereto as Attachment 4.
As such, the Districts respectfully request that City Council approve the inclusion of 6.2
acres of the Paradigm Property within the boundaries of District No. 4 and 8.8 acres of the
Paradigm Property within the boundaries of District No. 5. To aid in this request, we have prepared
a draft resolution approving the inclusion of property into District No. 4 and District No. 5 that
may be considered by City Council at a forthcoming meeting. Based on our review of the City of
Fort Collins Policy For Reviewing Service Plans for Metropolitan Districts adopted April 20, 2021
and preliminary discussions with the City, it is our understanding based on the Service Plan
language noted above that this request will need to be considered by the Council Finance
Committee prior to being considered by City Council, but that no other notice, fee, or submittal
requirements are applicable as this request does not constitute a material modification requiring an
amendment to the Service Plan.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
ICENOGLE SEAVER POGUE
A Professional Corporation
Tamara K. Seaver
cc: Board of Directors, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Bryan Byler, PNE Prospect Road Holdings, LLC
Page 50 of 309
ATTACHMENT 1
Overlay District Map
Page 51 of 309
Page 52 of 309
Page 53 of 309
ATTACHMENT 2
Land Survey Plat of
Paradigm Property
Page 54 of 309
Page 55 of 309
Multi Family
Detention
3,763 sf
Slim Chickens 4,769 sf
Murphy's Oil
Canopy
(8 pumps)
Propane
Trash
1.1 ac
1.0 ac
3.3 ac
1.0 ac
6.2 ac
80' Collector
77'
Commercial
Local
50'
80'
130.00'
129.90'
170.00'
HOTEL 1
HOTEL 2
FAST FOOD
MULTI-FAMILY
FAST FOOD GAS
STATION
PARADIGM PROPERTY | LOT PLAN
05/11/2022 NORTH
250 50 100
SCALE: 1" = 50'
Page 56 of 309
ATTACHMENT 3
Form of Petition for Inclusion into the Boundaries of
Rudolph Farm Metropolitan District Nos. 4 and 5
Page 57 of 309
PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF REAL PROPERTY
TO: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. __,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
The undersigned, as petitioners, PNE Prospect Road Holdings, LLC and Paradigm
Properties, LLC, hereby respectfully petition the Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. __ (the
“District”), acting by and through its Board of Directors, for the inclusion of the hereinafter
described real property into the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Sections 32-1-
401 et seq., C.R.S.
The undersigned hereby request that the real property described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”), be included in the boundaries of
the District and that an Order may be entered in the District Court in and for the County of Larimer,
State of Colorado, effectuating the inclusion of the Property into said District, and that from and
after the entry of such Order, said Property shall be liable for taxes, assessments or other
obligations of the District as provided by statute.
The undersigned represent to the District that PNE Prospect Road Holdings, LLC is under
contract to be the owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the Property pursuant to that Contract
to Buy and Sell Real Estate (Land) with Paradigm Properties, LLC, dated April 21, 2022, and that
no other person, persons, entity or entities own any interest therein, except as beneficial holders of
encumbrances.
The undersigned acknowledges that the District is not required to enlarge or extend its
facilities beyond those currently existing and all such enlargements or extensions are undertaken
in the exercise of discretion as a governmental function in the interest of public health, safety and
welfare.
The undersigned acknowledges that acceptance of this petition by the District does not
constitute any assurance from the District that the Property can be served by the District.
The undersigned further agrees that it will pay the fees associated with the inclusion of the
Property within the District if this petition is accepted, including the costs of publication of
appropriate legal notices.
Page 58 of 309
SUBMITTED THIS DAY OF , 20__.
PETITIONERS:
PNE Prospect Road Holdings, LLC
By:
Its:
ADDRESS OF PETITIONERS:
900 Castleton Road, Suite 118
Castle Rock, Colorado 80109
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ______________,
20__ by as of PNE Prospect Road
Holdings, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Page 59 of 309
PETITIONERS:
Paradigm Properties, LLC
By:
Its:
ADDRESS OF PETITIONERS:
P.O. Box 3236
Ventura, CA 93006-3536
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ______________,
20__ by as of Paradigm Properties, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Page 60 of 309
EXHIBIT A
To
Petition for Inclusion of Real Property
(Legal Description of Property to be Included in the Boundaries of
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. __)
Page 61 of 309
ATTACHMENT 4
Form of Resolution and Order
Regarding the Inclusion of Real Property
Page 62 of 309
RESOLUTION AND ORDER
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. __
REGARDING
INCLUSION OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, in accordance with and pursuant to Section 32-1-401(1)(a), C.R.S.,
______________________________, (the “Petitioner”) signed a petition for inclusion requesting
the Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. __ (the “District”) include, within the District’s
boundaries, the real property located in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, said petition is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B (the
“Petition”); and
WHEREAS, public notice was published on ___________, 202_ in The Coloradoan in
accordance with Section 32-1-401(1)(b), C.R.S., calling for a public hearing on the prayer of said
Petition; and
WHEREAS, on ___________, 202_, the Board of Directors of the District (the “Board”)
held a public hearing on the Petition in accordance with Section 32-1-401(1)(b), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, no objecting parties appeared at the public hearing, nor were any written
objections filed with the Board; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-401(1)(c)(I), C.R.S., the Board desires to grant the
Petition, in whole, subject to the conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. __ AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board hereby orders the inclusion of the Property within the boundaries of the
District, and the Board orders the Petition to be granted in whole.
2. The name and address of the Petitioner and description of the Property to be
included are as follows:
PETITIONER: ___________________________
ADDRESS: ___________________________
___________________________
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A
Page 63 of 309
3. The Board shall seek an Order from the District Court in and for Larimer County,
Colorado, which shall provide the effective date of this inclusion.
4. This resolution shall be certified and filed with the Clerk of the District Court of
Larimer County, Colorado in accordance with Section 32-1-401(1)(c), C.R.S.
5. The inclusion shall be subject to the District obtaining an Order of the District Court
ordering the inclusion of the Property effective upon issuance thereof, and recordation of such
Order as provided by statute.
[Remainder of this page left intentionally blank.]
Page 64 of 309
DONE AND ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________ 202_.
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT NO. __
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
Page 65 of 309
CERTIFICATE
COMES NOW, Michael Kleinman, the Secretary and Treasurer of the Rudolph Farms
Metropolitan District No. 6, and hereby certifies that the attached resolution is a true and accurate
copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors at its special meeting held _________ __,
202__, via _______________________________.
WITNESS my hand this this ___ day of __________ 202_.
By: Michael Kleinman
Its: Secretary and Treasurer
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. __
Page 66 of 309
EXHIBIT A
To
Resolution and Order
(Legal Description of Property to be Included into the Boundaries of Rudolph Farms
Metropolitan District No. _)
Page 67 of 309
EXHIBIT B
To
Resolution and Order
(Petition for Inclusion of Real Property into the Boundaries of Rudolph Farms
Metropolitan District No. _)
Page 68 of 309
Page 69 of 309
Page 70 of 309
Page 71 of 309
Page 72 of 309
Page 73 of 309
Page 74 of 309
Page 75 of 309
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
A. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................... 1
B. Need for the Districts. ............................................................................................. 2
C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts’ Service Plan. ....................................... 2
II. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 3
III. BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................................... 6
IV. PROPOSED LAND USE AND ASSESSED VALUATION ............................................. 6
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES ....... 7
A. Powers of the Districts and Service Plan Amendment. .......................................... 7
1. Operations and Maintenance....................................................................... 7
2. Development Standards. ............................................................................. 7
3. Privately Placed Debt Limitation. ............................................................... 7
4. Inclusion and Exclusion Limitation. ........................................................... 8
5. Maximum Debt Authorization. ................................................................... 8
6. Monies from Other Governmental Sources. ............................................... 8
7. Consolidation Limitation. ........................................................................... 8
8. Eminent Domain Limitation. ...................................................................... 8
9. Service Plan Amendment Requirement. ..................................................... 9
B. Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan. ....................................................... 9
VI. FINANCIAL PLAN.......................................................................................................... 10
A. General. ................................................................................................................. 10
B. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Maximum Underwriting Discount. .............. 11
C. Maximum Mill Levies. ......................................................................................... 11
D. Debt Issuance and Maturity. ................................................................................. 12
E. Security for Debt. .................................................................................................. 12
F. TABOR Compliance. ............................................................................................ 12
G. Districts’ Operating Costs. .................................................................................... 12
H. Elections. ............................................................................................................... 13
VII. ANNUAL REPORT ......................................................................................................... 13
A. General. ................................................................................................................. 13
B. Reporting of Significant Events. ........................................................................... 13
VIII. DISSOLUTION ................................................................................................................ 14
IX. PROPOSED AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND
EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS ..................................................... 14
X. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 14
Page 76 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 ii
XI. SANCTIONS .................................................................................................................... 15
XII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY .............................................. 16
XIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 16
XIV. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ..................................................................................... 16
Page 77 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A-1 Legal Description of Project Area Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-2 Legal Description of District No. 1
EXHIBIT A-3 Legal Description of District No. 2
EXHIBIT A-4 Legal Description of District No. 3
EXHIBIT A-5 Legal Description of District No. 4
EXHIBIT A-6 Legal Description of District No. 5
EXHIBIT A-7 Legal Description of District No. 6
EXHIBIT B-1 Project Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-2 District No. 1 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-3 District Nos. 2-6 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-4 District Nos. 1-6 Estimated Future Boundary Map
EXHIBIT C Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT D Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan
EXHIBIT E Financial Plan
EXHIBIT F Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 78 of 309
1
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. Except as may otherwise be
provided for by State or local law or this Service Plan, the Districts’ activities are subject to review
by the City only insofar as they may deviate in a material manner from the requirements of this
Service Plan. The Districts are needed to provide Public Improvements to the Project for the benefit
of property owners within the Districts and other local development and will result in enhanced
benefits to existing and future business owners and/or residents of the City. The primary purpose
of the Districts will be to finance the construction of these Public Improvements.
The Districts are being organized under a multiple-district structure. As the Project
is anticipated to be built over an extended period of time, this will allow for a phased absorption
of the Project and corresponding Public Improvements. Additionally, such structure assures proper
coordination of the powers and authorities of the independent Districts and avoids confusion
regarding the separate, but coordinated, purposes of the Districts that could arise if separate service
plans were used. Under such structure, District No. 6, as the service district, is responsible for
managing the construction and operation of the facilities and improvements needed for the Project.
District No. 1, District No. 2, District No. 3, District No. 4 and District No. 5, as the financing
districts, are responsible for providing the funding and tax base needed to support the Financial
Plan for capital improvements. The continued operation of District No. 6 as the service district
which owns and operates the public facilities throughout the Project, and the continued operation
of District No. 1, District No. 2, District No. 3, District No. 4 and District No. 5 as the financing
districts that will generate the tax revenue sufficient to pay the costs of the capital improvements,
creates several benefits. These benefits include, inter alia: (1) coordinated administration of
construction and operation of Public Improvements, and delivery of those improvements in a
timely manner; (2) maintenance of equitable mill levies and reasonable tax burdens on all areas of
the Project through proper management of the financing and operation of the Public
Improvements; and (3) assured compliance with state laws regarding taxation in a manner which
permits the issuance of tax exempt Debt at the most favorable interest rates possible.
Currently, development of the Project is anticipated to proceed in phases. Each
phase will require the extension of public services and facilities. The multiple district structure will
assure that the construction and operation of each phase is primarily administered by a single board
of directors consistent with a long-term construction and operations program. Use of District No.
6 as the entity responsible for construction of each phase of the Public Improvements and for
management of operations will facilitate a well-planned financing effort through all phases of
construction and will assist in assuring coordinated extension of services.
The multiple district structure will also help assure that Public Improvements will
be provided when they are needed, and not sooner. Appropriate development agreements between
District No. 6 and the Property Owners of the Project will allow the postponement of financing for
improvements which may not be needed until well into the future, thereby helping property owners
avoid the long-term carrying costs associated with financing improvements too early. This, in turn,
Page 79 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 2
allows the full costs of Public Improvements to be allocated over the full build-out of the Project
and helps avoid disproportionate cost burdens being imposed on the early phases of development.
Allocation of the responsibility for paying Debt for Public Improvements and
capital costs will be managed through development of a unified financing plan for those
improvements and through development of an integrated operating plan for long-term operations
and maintenance. Use of District No. 6 as the service district to manage these functions will help
assure that the phasing of the Public Improvements will occur as logical and necessary as to
conform to development plans approved by the City and will help maintain reasonably uniform
mill levies and fee structures throughout the coordinated construction, installation, acquisition,
financing and operation of Public Improvements throughout the Project. Intergovernmental
agreements among the Districts will assure that the roles and responsibilities of each District are
clear in this coordinated development and financing plan.
B. Need for the Districts.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in
the immediate vicinity of the Districts that, at this time, can financially undertake the planning,
design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, and financing 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 the Service Plan for the Districts 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. The Districts project to issue a total of One Hundred and Eleven Million Dollars
($111,000,000). All Debt is projected to be repaid by the imposition of a Debt Service Mill Levy
not to exceed Eighty (80) Mills minus the Overlay District Debt Service Mill Levy, which is in
turn not to exceed Ten (10) Mills, subject to adjustment as set forth in the service plan of the
Overlay District. The combined Debt Service Mill Levy, Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy
and Overlay District Debt Service Mill Levy shall under no circumstances exceed the Maximum
Mill Levy described in Section VI.C. In no event shall the Debt Service Mill Levy exceed the
Maximum Mill Levy as described in Section VI.C. herein. The City shall, under no circumstances,
be responsible for the Debts of the Districts and the City’s approval of this Service Plan shall in
no way be interpreted as an agreement, whether tacit or otherwise, to be financially responsible
for the Debts of the Districts or the construction of Public Improvements.
This Service Plan is intended to establish a limited purpose for the Districts and
explicit financial constraints that are not to be violated under any circumstances. The primary
purpose is to provide for the Public Improvements associated with the Project and regional
improvements as necessary. Ongoing operational and maintenance activities are allowed as
addressed in this Service Plan to the extent that the Districts have sufficiently demonstrated that
such operations and maintenance functions are in the best interest of the City and the existing and
future taxpayers of the Districts. As further detailed in Section VI.C. herein, the aggregate of the
Page 80 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 3
Debt Service Mill Levy, Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy and Overlay District Debt Service
Mill Levy shall not exceed the Maximum Mill Levy.
It is the intent of the Districts 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. However, if the Districts have authorized operation and maintenance functions under this
Service Plan, or if by agreement with the City it is desired that the Districts shall continue to exist,
then the Districts shall not dissolve but shall retain the power necessary to impose and collect taxes
or fees to pay for costs associated with said operations and maintenance functions and/or to
perform agreements with the City.
The Districts shall be authorized to finance the Public Improvements that can be
funded from Debt to be repaid from tax revenues collected from a mill levy which shall not exceed
the Maximum Mill Levy and which shall not exceed the Maximum Debt Authorization and
Maximum Debt Maturity Term.
II. DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following terms which appear in a capitalized format herein shall
have the meanings indicated below, unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise:
Approved Development Plan: means a development plan or other process established by
the City (including but not limited to approval of a final plat or PUD by the City Council) for
identifying, among other things, Public Improvements necessary for facilitating development of
property within the Service Area as approved by the City pursuant to the City Code and as amended
pursuant to the City Code from time to time.
Binding Agreement: means the Binding Agreement Pertaining to Development of
Interstate Highway 25 and Prospect Road Interchange, by and among the City and the Property
Owner, among others.
Board or Boards: means the Board of Directors of any 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,
and other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include intergovernmental agreements
pledging the collection and payment of property taxes in connection with a service district and
taxing district(s) structure, if applicable, and other contracts through which a District procures or
provides services or tangible property.
Capital Pledge Agreement: means the Capital Pledge Agreement between the City and the
Overlay District implementing the terms and provisions of the Binding Agreement.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
City Code: means the Code of the City of Fort Collins and any regulations, rules, or policies
promulgated thereunder, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Page 81 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 4
City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Any provision
in this Agreement requiring City Council approval shall be deemed to be exercised by City Council
in its sole discretion.
Debt Service Mill Levy: means the mill levy the Districts project to impose for payment of
Debt as set forth in the Financial Plan and Section VI. below.
District: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 1, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan
District No. 2, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 3, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District
No. 4, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 5 or Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 6,
individually.
District No. 1: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 1.
District No. 2: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 2.
District No. 3: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 3.
District No. 4: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 4.
District No. 5: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 5.
District No. 6: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 6.
Districts: means Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 1, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan
District No. 2, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 3, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District
No. 4, Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 5 and Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No.
6, collectively.
District Organization Date: means the date the order and decree issued by the Larimer
County District Court as required by law for the District or Districts is recorded with the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) 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 Districts.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section VI which is prepared by an
External Financial Advisor in accordance with the requirements of the City Code 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 for the first budget year
through the year in which all District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course.
In the event the Financial Plan is not prepared by an External Financial Advisor, the Financial Plan
is accompanied by a letter of support from an External Financial Advisor. This Financial Plan is
Page 82 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 5
intended to represent only one example of debt issuance and financing structure of the Districts,
any variations or adjustments in the timing or implementation thereof shall not be interpreted as
material modifications to this Service Plan.
Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan: means the Infrastructure Preliminary
Development Plan as described in Section V.B. which includes: (a) a preliminary list of the Public
Improvements to be developed by the Districts; (b) an estimate of the cost of the Public
Improvements; and (c) the map or maps showing the approximate location(s) of the Public
Improvements. The Districts’ implementation of this Infrastructure Preliminary Development
Plan is subject to change conditioned upon various external factors including, but not limited to,
site conditions, engineering requirements, City, county or state requirements, land use conditions,
market conditions, and zoning limitations.
Intergovernmental Agreement: means the intergovernmental agreement between the
Districts and the City, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The Intergovernmental
Agreement may be amended from time to time by the applicable District and the City.
Maximum Mill Levy: means the maximum mill levy each of the Districts is permitted to
impose under this Service Plan for payment of Debt and administration, operations, and
maintenance expenses as set forth in Section VI.C. below.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the Districts are permitted to issue as
set forth in Section V.A.5 and supported by the Financial Plan.
Maximum Debt Maturity Term: means the maximum term for repayment in full of a
specific District Debt issuance as set forth in Section VI.D. below.
Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy: means the mill levy the Districts project to impose
for payment of administration, operations, and maintenance costs as set forth in the Financial Plan
and Section VI. below.
Overlay District: means the I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District.
Overlay District Debt Service Mill Levy: means the mill levy the Overlay District imposes
under its service plan for payment of its debt.
Project: means the development or property commonly referred to as the Rudolph Farms
Site.
Project Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area described in the Project Area
Boundary Map and the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.
Project Area Boundary Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit B-1, describing the
overall property that incorporates the Project.
Property Owner: means Land Acquisition and Management, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, representing a group of tenants in common, its agents or assigns.
Page 83 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 6
Public Improvements: means a part or all of the improvements authorized to be planned,
designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped and financed as generally
described in the Special District Act, except as specifically limited in Section V below to serve the
future taxpayers and property owners of the Service Area as determined by the Board of the
Districts.
Service Area: means the property within the Project Area Boundary Map after such
property has been included within the Districts.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means an amendment to the Service Plan approved by the City
Council in accordance with applicable state law and this Service Plan.
Special District Act or “Act”: means Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes,
as amended from time to time.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Vicinity Map: means a map of the regional area surrounding the Project.
III. BOUNDARIES
The Project Area Boundaries includes approximately One Hundred Thirty Three (133)
acres. A legal description of the Project Area Boundaries is attached as Exhibit A-1. The Project
Area Boundaries are divided into six (6) separate and distinct Districts (District No. 1, District No.
2, District No. 3, District No. 4, District No. 5 and District No. 6), legal descriptions for which are
attached hereto as Exhibits A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7, respectively. A Project Area
Boundary Map is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1, a map of District No. 1 is included as Exhibit B-
2, a map of District Nos. 2-6 is included as Exhibit B-3, and an estimated future boundary map of
the Districts is included as Exhibit B-4. Finally, a Vicinity Map is attached hereto as Exhibit C. It
is anticipated that the Districts’ Boundaries may change from time to time as they undergo
inclusions and exclusions pursuant to Section 32-1-401, et seq., C.R.S., and Section 32-1-501, et
seq., C.R.S., subject to the limitations set forth in Article V below.
IV. PROPOSED LAND USE AND ASSESSED VALUATION
The Service Area consists of approximately One Hundred Thirty Three (133) acres of
planned mixed use land. The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) and, at build out, is expected to be approximately One
Hundred and Ninety Four Million Dollars ($194,000,000). This amount is expected to be sufficient
to reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
Approval of this Service Plan by the City does not imply approval of the development of a
specific area within the Districts, nor does it imply approval of the total site/floor area of
commercial buildings or space which may be identified in this Service Plan or any of the exhibits
attached thereto or any of the Public Improvements, unless the same is contained within an
Approved Development Plan.
Page 84 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 7
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES
A. Powers of the Districts and Service Plan Amendment.
The Districts shall have the power and authority to acquire, construct and install the
Public Improvements within and without the boundaries of the Districts as such power and
authority is described in the Special District Act, and other applicable statutes, common law and
the State Constitution, subject to the limitations set forth herein.
If, after the Service Plan is approved, the State Legislature includes additional
powers or grants new or broader powers for Title 32 districts by amendment of the Special District
Act or otherwise, any or all such powers shall be deemed to be a part hereof and available to or
exercised by the Districts upon prior resolution approval of the City Council concerning the
exercise of such powers. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a material
modification of this Service Plan.
1. Operations and Maintenance. The 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 applicable
provisions of the City Code. Additionally, the Districts shall be authorized to operate and maintain
any part or all of the Public Improvements until such time that the Districts dissolve.
2. Development Standards. The Districts will ensure that the Public
Improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications
of the City and of other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The
Districts directly or indirectly through the Property Owners or 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, 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 when the Districts have obtained funds,
through bond issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public
Improvements. Any limitation or requirement concerning the time within which the City must
review the Districts’ proposal or application for an Approved Development Plan or other land use
approval is hereby waived by the Districts.
3. Privately Placed Debt Limitation. Prior to the issuance of any privately
placed Debt, a District 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 (1) the net effective interest rate (calculated as
defined in Section 32-1-103(12), C.R.S.) to be borne by the District
for the [insert the designation of the Debt] does not exceed a
reasonable current [tax-exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria
Page 85 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 8
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.
4. Inclusion and Exclusion Limitation. The Districts shall be entitled to
include within their boundaries any property within the Project Area Boundaries without prior
approval of the City Council. The Districts shall also be entitled to exclude from their boundaries
any property within the Project Area Boundaries so far as, within a reasonable time thereafter, the
property is included within the boundaries of another District, and upon compliance with the
provisions of the Special District Act. All other inclusions or exclusions shall require the prior
resolution approval of the City Council, and if approved, shall not constitute a material
modification of this Service Plan.
5. Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts anticipate approximately
Ninety Million Three Hundred Thirty-One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars
($90,331,587) in project costs in 2018 dollars as set forth in Exhibit D, and anticipate issuing
approximately One Hundred and Eleven Million Dollars ($111,000,000) (the “Maximum Debt
Authorization”) in Debt to pay such costs as set forth in Exhibit E. The Districts shall not issue
Debt in amounts in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts must seek prior
resolution approval by the City Council to issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt
Authorization to pay the actual costs of the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit D plus
inflation, contingencies and other unforeseen expenses associated with such Public Improvements.
Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a material modification of this Service Plan
so long as increases are reasonably related to the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit D and
any Approved Development Plan.
6. Monies from Other Governmental Sources. The Districts shall not apply
for or accept Conservation Trust Funds, Great Outdoors Colorado Funds, or other funds available
from or through governmental or non-profit entities for which the City is eligible to apply for,
except pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. This Section shall not apply to
specific ownership taxes which shall be distributed to and a revenue source for the Districts without
any limitation.
7. Consolidation Limitation. The Districts shall not file a request with an y
Court to consolidate with another Title 32 district without the prior resolution approval of the City
Council, unless such consolidation is among the Districts themselves, which shall not require
approval of the City Council.
8. Eminent Domain Limitation. The Districts shall not exercise their statutory
power of eminent domain without first obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This
restriction on the Eminent Domain power by the Districts is being exercised voluntarily 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 political subdivisions of the State of Colorado as allowed
by the Special District Act.
Page 86 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 9
9. Service Plan Amendment Requirement. This Service Plan is general in
nature and does not include specific detail in some instances because development plans have not
been finalized. The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts
to provide required services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for
numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of services 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 consistent with the
then-current Approved Development Plan(s) for the Project. The Districts shall be independent
units of local government, separate and distinct from the City, and their activities are subject to
review by the City only insofar as they may deviate in a material manner from the requirements of
the Service Plan. Any action of a District which: (1) violates the limitations set forth in this Section
V.A. or (2) violates the limitations set forth in Section VI. below, shall be deemed to be a material
modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise agreed by the City as provided for in Section X
of this Service Plan or unless otherwise expressly provided herein. All other departures from the
provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether such
departures are a material modification, unless otherwise expressly provided herein.
No District may amend this Service Plan in a manner which materially affects any
other District, in such other District’s sole discretion, without such other District’s written consent.
B. Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan.
The Districts shall have authority to provide for the planning, design, acquisition,
construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, maintenance, and financing of the Public
Improvements within and without the boundaries of the Districts, to be more specifically defined
in an Approved Development Plan. The Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan, including:
(1) a list of the Public Improvements to be developed by the Districts; (2) an estimate of the cost
of the Public Improvements; and (3) maps showing the approximate locations of the Publi c
Improvements is attached hereto as Exhibit D and is hereby deemed to constitute the preliminary
engineering or architectural survey required by Section 32-1-202(2)(c), C.R.S. The maps contained
in the Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan are also available in size and scale approved
by the City’s planning department.
As shown in the Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan, the estimated cost
of the Public Improvements which may be planned for, designed, acquired, constructed, installed,
relocated, redeveloped, maintained or financed by the Districts is approximately Ninety Million
Three Hundred Thirty-One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars ($90,331,587).
The Districts shall be permitted to allocate costs between such categories of the
Public Improvements as deemed necessary in their discretion.
All of the Public Improvements described herein will be designed in such a way as
to assure that the Public Improvements standards will be consistent with or exceed the standards
of the City and shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Approved Development Plan.
All descriptions of the Public Improvements to be constructed, and their related costs, are estimates
only and are subject to modification as engineering, development plans, economics, the City’s
requirements, and construction scheduling may require. Upon approval of this Service Plan, the
Page 87 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 10
Districts will continue to develop and refine the Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan and
prepare for issuance of Debt. All cost estimates will be inflated to then-current dollars at the time
of the issuance of Debt and construction. All construction cost estimates contained in the
Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan assume construction to applicable local, State or
Federal requirements. Changes in the Public Improvements, Infrastructure Preliminary
Development Plan, or costs, which are approved by the City in an Approved Development Plan,
shall not constitute a material modification of this Service Plan. Additionally, due to the
preliminary nature of the Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan, the City shall not be bound
by the Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan in reviewing and approving the Approved
Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede the Infrastructure
Preliminary Development Plan.
VI. FINANCIAL PLAN
A. General.
The Districts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition,
construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment of the Public Improvements from their
revenues and by and through the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts, subject to the
limitations contained herein. The Financial Plan for the Districts shall be to issue no more Debt
than the Districts can reasonably pay within Thirty (30) years for each series of Debt from revenues
derived from the Debt Service Mill Levy and other revenue sources authorized by law. The
Financial Plan for the Districts projects the need for a Debt Service Mill Levy of no greater than
Fifty (50) Mills. The Financial Plan further provides for the Districts’ administrative and
operations and maintenance activities through the imposition of an Operations and Maintenance
Mill Levy of no greater than Twenty (20) Mills.
The total Debt that the Districts shall be permitted to issue shall not exceed the
Maximum Debt Authorization; provided, however, that Debt issued to refund outstanding Debt of
the Districts, including Debt issued to refund Debt owed to the Property Owners of the Project
pursuant to a reimbursement agreement or other agreement, shall not count against the Maximum
Debt Authorization so long as such refunding Debt does not result in a net present value increase.
Subject to the limitations contained herein, District Debt shall be issued on a schedule and in such
year or years as the Districts determine shall meet the needs of the Financial Plan referenced above
and phased to serve the Project as it occurs. All Bonds and other Debt issued by the Districts may
be payable from any and all legally available revenues of the Districts, including general ad
valorem taxes to be imposed upon all taxable property within the Districts. The Districts may also
rely upon various other revenue sources authorized by law. These will include the power to impose
development fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges as provided in Section 32-1-1001(1), C.R.S.,
as amended from time to time.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the
District shall not be authorized to impose any fees, rates, tolls or charges for any purpose unless
and until (a) the Owners (as defined in the Binding Agreement) have recorded the PIF Covenant
(as defined in the Binding Agreement) against each of their respective properties, and (b) the City
and the Overlay District have entered into the Capital Pledge Agreement. Failure to comply with
Page 88 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 11
this provision shall constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the
City to all remedies available at law and in equity.
The Maximum Debt Authorization, Debt Service Mill Levy, Operations,
Maintenance Mill Levy, and all other financial projections and estimates contained in this Service
Plan are supported by the Financial Plan (Exhibit E) prepared by an External Financial Advisor,
D.A. Davidson and Co. The Financial Plan is based on economic, political and industry conditions
as they exist presently 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
Districts’ goals and objectives but rather a representation of one feasible alternative. Other
financial structures may be used so long as the Maximum Debt Authorization and Maximum Mill
Levy are not exceeded. Notwithstanding the foregoing, D.A. Davidson and Co. shall not be
considered a financial advisor or municipal advisor with regard to any Debt issuance by the
Districts.
B. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Maximum 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 is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%).
The maximum underwriting discount will be Three Percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply
with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, State law and Federal law as then applicable to
the issuance of public securities.
C. Maximum Mill Levies.
The Maximum Mill Levy shall be the maximum mill levy each District is permitted
to impose upon the taxable property within its boundaries and shall be Eighty (80) Mills minus the
Overlay District Debt Service Mill Levy. The combined Debt Service Mill Levy, Operations and
Maintenance Mill Levy, Overlay District Debt Service Mill Levy and aggregate mill levy of any
overlapping District shall under no circumstances exceed the Maximum Mill Levy. Allocation of
the Debt Service Mill Levy and Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy shall be left to the sole
discretion of the Board for each District. If, on or after January 1, 2018, there are changes in the
method of calculating assessed valuation or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or
abatement, the preceding mill levy limitations may be increased or decreased to reflect such
changes, with such increases or decreases to be determined by each Board in good faith (such
determination to be binding and final), with administrative approval by the City, so that to the
extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the applicable District’s mill levy, as adjusted
for changes occurring after January 1, 2018, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of
such changes. 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.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the
District shall not be authorized to impose any mill levy for any purpose unless and until (a) each
of the Owners (as defined in the Binding Agreement) have recorded the PIF Covenant (as defined
in the Binding Agreement) against each of their respective properties, and (b) the City and the
Overlay District have entered into the Capital Pledge Agreement. Failure to comply with this
Page 89 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 12
provision shall constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City
to all remedies available at law and in equity.
D. Debt Issuance and Maturity.
The scheduled final maturity of any Debt or series of Debt shall be limited to Thirty
(30) years (the “Maximum Debt Maturity Term”). The Maximum Debt Maturity Term shall apply
to refundings unless: (1) a majority of the Board members are residents of the District 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 as set forth in Section 11-56-101 et seq., C.R.S. and are otherwise permitted
by law.
Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the Districts shall be limited to
issuing new Debt within a period of Twenty (20) years from the date of their first Debt
authorization election. The Maximum Debt Maturity Term, as described in Section VI.D, shall be
applicable to any new Debt issued within this Twenty (20) year period, otherwise, all Debts and
financial obligations of the Districts must be defeased or paid in the ordinary course no later than
Forty (40) years after the Service Plan approval date.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the
District shall not be authorized to issue any Debt for any purpose unless and until (a) each of the
Owners (as defined in the Binding Agreement) have recorded the PIF Covenant (as defined in the
Binding Agreement) against each of their respective properties, and (b) the City and the Overlay
District have entered into the Capital Pledge Agreement. Failure to comply with this provision
shall constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to all
remedies available at law and in equity.
E. Security for Debt.
The Districts do not have the authority and 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
obligation or performance of any other obligation.
F. TABOR Compliance.
The Districts will comply with the provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
(“TABOR”), Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution. In the discretion of the Board, a 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.
G. 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
Page 90 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 13
operations, are anticipated to be Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), 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 Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000). Ongoing administration, operations, and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes and other revenues.
H. Elections.
The Districts will call an election on the questions of organizing the Districts,
electing the initial Boards, and setting in place financial authorizations as required by TABOR.
The elections will be conducted as required by law.
VII. ANNUAL REPORT
A. General.
The Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report with the City’s
clerk not later than September 1st of each year for the year ending the preceding December 31
following the year of the District Organization Date. The City may, in its sole discretion, waive
this requirement in whole or in part.
B. Reporting of Significant Events.
Unless waived by the City, the annual report shall include the following:
1. A narrative summary of the progress of the Districts in implementing their
service plan for the report year;
2. Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year
under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the Districts 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 operations (i.e., revenues and expenditures) for the report year;
3. Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a
summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the Districts in development of Public
Improvements in the report year;
4. Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a
summary of the financial obligations of the Districts at the end of the report year, including the
amount of outstanding indebtedness, the amount and terms of any new District indebtedness or
long-term obligations issued in the report year, the amount of payment or retirement of existing
indebtedness of the Districts in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all taxable properties
within the Districts as of January 1 of the report year and the current mill levy of the Districts
pledged to Debt retirement in the report year; and
Page 91 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 14
5. Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed
reasonably necessary by the City’s manager and communicated in a timely manner to the Districts.
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City’s clerk or is not
fully responsive, notice of such default may be given to the Board of such Districts, at its last
known address. The failure of the Districts to file the annual report within Forty-Five (45) days of
the mailing of such default notice by the City’s clerk may constitute a material modification, at the
discretion of the City.
VIII. DISSOLUTION
Upon an independent determination of the City Council that the purposes for which the
Districts were created have been accomplished, the Districts agree to file petitions in the
appropriate District Court for dissolution, pursuant to the applicable State statutes. In no event
shall dissolution occur until the Districts have provided for the payment or discharge of all of their
outstanding indebtedness and other financial obligations as required pursuant to State statutes,
including operation and maintenance activities.
IX. PROPOSED AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND
EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS
All intergovernmental agreements must be for purposes, facilities, services or agreements
lawfully authorized to be provided by the Districts, pursuant to the State Constitution, Article XIV,
Section 18(2)(a) and Sections 29-1-201, et seq., C.R.S. To the extent practicable, the Districts may
enter into additional intergovernmental and private agreements to better ensure long-term
provision of the Public Improvements identified herein or for other lawful purposes of the Districts.
Agreements may also be executed with property owner associations and other service providers.
The following agreement is likely to be necessary, and the rationale therefore is set forth
as follows:
District Facilities Construction and Service Agreement. The Districts anticipate entering
into a District Facilities Construction and Service Agreement, commonly known as the “Master
IGA”, wherein the Districts set forth the financing and administrative requirements of the Districts
for the Project.
Except for the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City, as set forth in Section XII
below, no other agreements are required, or known at the time of formation of the Districts to
likely be required, to fulfill the purposes of the Districts. Execution of intergovernmental
agreements or agreements for extraterritorial services by the Districts that are not described in this
Service Plan and which are likely to cause a substantial increase in the Districts’ budgets shall
require the prior resolution approval of the City Council, which approval shall not constitute a
material modification hereof.
X. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Page 92 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 15
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with Section
32-1-207, C.R.S. No modification shall be required for an action of the Districts which does not
materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan.
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification 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 or acquisition of a major facility that
is not closely related to a service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3. Failure to perform a service or function or acquire a facility required by the
Service Plan;
4. Failure by the Districts to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement as set
forth in Article XI hereof; and
5. Failure to comply with the limitations set forth in Section V.A. or Section
VI of this Service Plan.
Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation
changes in quantities of facilities or equipment, immaterial cost differences, and actions expressly
authorized in the Service Plan.
XI. SANCTIONS
Should the District undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council
resolution approval as required in this Service Plan or that constitutes a material
modification to this Service Plan as provided herein or under the Special District Act, the
City may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate:
1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Act;
2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or
other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District’s
development, construction or operation of improvements, or the provisions of services as
contemplated in this Service Plan;
3. Exercise any legal remedy as provided in the Capital Pledge
Agreement or in any other intergovernmental agreement with the City under which the
District is in default; or
Page 93 of 309
1598.0003; 876591 16
4. Exercise any other legal remedy at law or in equity, including
seeking specific performance, mandamus or injunctive relief against the District, to
ensure the District’s compliance with this Service Plan and applicable law.
XII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY
The Districts and the City shall enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement, a form of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit F, provided that such Intergovernmental Agreement may be
revised by the City and Districts to include such additional details and requirements therein as are
deemed necessary by the City and such Districts in connection with the development of the Project
and the financing of the Public Improvements. Each District shall approve the Intergovernmental
Agreement at its first Board meeting after its organizational election. Failure by each of the
Districts to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement as required herein shall constitute a material
modification hereunder. The Intergovernmental Agreement may be amended from time to time
by the Districts and the City, provided that any such amendments shall be in compliance with the
provisions of this Service Plan.
XIII. CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan for the Districts, as required by Section 32-1-203(2),
establishes that:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the
area to be serviced by the Districts;
2. The existing service in the 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 area within their proposed boundaries; and
4. The area to be included in the Districts does have, and will have, the
financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XIV. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Districts agree to incorporate the City Council’s resolution of approval, including any
conditions on any such approval, into the Service Plan presented to the District Court for and in
Larimer County, Colorado.
Page 94 of 309
EXHIBIT A-1
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Legal Description of Project Area Boundaries
Page 95 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-1
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
Tracts of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 45.00 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of
the Southeast Frontage Road of Interstate Highway 25, said point being POINT OF BEGINNING 1;
thence continuing along the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, South 89° 38' 43"
East, 2598.20 feet to the Center Corner of said Section15; thence along the North-South Section
line of Section 15, South 00° 05' 39" West, 1331.29 feet to the Center-South Sixteenth Corner of
Section 15, also being a point on the North line of that Parcel of land as described at Reception No.
99062749, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along the North and West lines of said
Parcel the following 2 courses and distances: North 89° 49' 50" West, 637.70 feet; thence, South
00° 00' 36" West, 804.25 feet to a point on the North line of that parcel of land described at Book
1531 Page 759, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said North line the following 5
courses and distances: thence, North 54° 58' 16" West, 474.72 feet; thence, North 76° 19' 16"
West, 163.85 feet; thence, North 84° 59' 16" West, 548.82 feet; thence, North 67° 52' 16" West,
88.12 feet; thence, North 54° 48' 16" West, 949.54 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of the
Southeast Frontage Road of Interstate Highway 25; thence along said Easterly right-of-way line the
following 2 courses and distances: North 00° 11' 39" East, 1151.18 feet; thence, North 09° 26'
43" West, 59.72 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1, containing 4,203,912 square feet or 96.51
acres, more or less.
AND
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 2,643.20 feet; thence, South 00° 05’ 39” West,
1331.29 feet; thence, North 89° 49’ 50” West, 637.70 feet; thence, South 00° 00’ 36” West,
804.25 feet; thence, South 00° 00’ 36” West, 61.05 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2; thence,
South 00° 00' 36" West, 438.93 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of East Prospect
Road; thence, South 00° 00' 36" West, 30.00 feet to a point on the South line of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 15; thence along said South line, North 89° 59' 24" West, 1181.93 feet;
Page 1 of 2
Page 96 of 309
thence, North 00° 00' 36" East, 30.25 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of East
Prospect Road, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of the Southeast Frontage
Road of Interstate Highway 25; thence along said Easterly right-of-way line the following 7 courses
and distances: North 65° 50' 44" West, 112.37 feet; thence, South 89° 54' 52" West, 299.87
feet; thence, North 57° 21' 33" West, 106.29 feet; thence, North 26° 23' 32" West, 458.81 feet;
thence, North 11° 18' 02" West, 200.00 feet; thence, North 03° 14' 53" West, 294.32 feet;
thence, North 00° 10' 38" East, 360.36 feet to a point on the South line of that parcel of land
described at Book 1531 Page 759, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said South
line the following 5 courses and distances: South 54° 48' 16" East, 895.99 feet; thence, South 67°
52' 16" East, 101.38 feet; thence, South 84° 59' 16" East, 552.56 feet; thence South 76° 19' 16"
East, 150.63 feet; thence, South 54° 58' 16" East, 500.33 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2,
containing 1,580,513 square feet or 36.28 acres, more or less.
The above described Tracts of land contains 5,784,425 square feet or 132.79 acres more or less
and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_Overall Boundary.docx
Page 2 of 2
Page 97 of 309
EXHIBIT A-2
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
Legal Description
Page 98 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-2
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 1
Tracts of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 2,643.20 feet; thence, South 00° 05’ 39” West,
1331.29 feet; thence, North 89° 49’ 50” West, 637.70 feet; thence, South 00° 00’ 36” West,
804.25 feet; thence, South 00° 00’ 36” West, 61.05 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1; thence,
South 00° 00' 36" West, 468.93 feet; thence, North 89° 59' 24" West, 1181.93 feet; thence,
North 00° 00' 36" East, 30.25 feet; thence, North 65° 50' 44" West, 112.37 feet; thence, South
89° 54' 52" West, 299.87 feet; thence, North 57° 21' 33" West, 106.29 feet; thence, North 26°
23' 32" West, 458.81 feet; thence, North 11° 18' 02" West, 200.00 feet; thence North 03° 14'
53" West, 294.32 feet; thence, North 00° 10' 38" East, 360.36 feet; thence, South 54° 48' 16"
East, 895.99 feet; thence, South 67° 52' 16" East, 101.38 feet; thence, South 84° 59' 16" East,
552.56 feet; thence, South 76° 19' 16" East, 150.64 feet; thence, South 54° 58' 16" East,
500.33 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1, containing 1,580,513 square feet or 36.28 acres, more
or less.
AND
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 75.00 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2; thence,
South 89° 38' 43" East, 208.71 feet; thence, South 00° 21' 17" West, 208.71 feet; thence North
89° 38' 43" West, 208.71 feet; thence, North 00° 21' 17" East, 208.71 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING 2, containing 43,560 square feet or 1.00 acres, more or less.
The above described Tracts of land contains 1,624,073 square feet or 37.28 acres more or less
and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_District 1.docx
Page 1 of 1
Page 99 of 309
EXHIBIT A-3
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 2
Legal Description
Page 100 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-3
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 2
A Tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 75.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence,
South 89° 38' 43" East, 208.71 feet; thence, South 00° 21' 17" West, 208.71 feet; thence North
89° 38' 43" West, 208.71 feet; thence, North 00° 21' 17" East, 208.71 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described Tract of land contains 43,560 square feet or 1.00 acres, more or less, and is
subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_District 2.docx
Page 1 of 1
Page 101 of 309
EXHIBIT A-4
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 3
Legal Description
Page 102 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-4
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 3
A Tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 75.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence,
South 89° 38' 43" East, 208.71 feet; thence, South 00° 21' 17" West, 208.71 feet; thence North
89° 38' 43" West, 208.71 feet; thence, North 00° 21' 17" East, 208.71 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described Tract of land contains 43,560 square feet or 1.00 acres, more or less, and is
subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_District 3.docx
Page 1 of 1
Page 103 of 309
EXHIBIT A-5
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 4
Legal Description
Page 104 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-5
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 4
A Tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 75.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence,
South 89° 38' 43" East, 208.71 feet; thence, South 00° 21' 17" West, 208.71 feet; thence North
89° 38' 43" West, 208.71 feet; thence, North 00° 21' 17" East, 208.71 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described Tract of land contains 43,560 square feet or 1.00 acres, more or less, and is
subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_District 4.docx
Page 1 of 1
Page 105 of 309
EXHIBIT A-6
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 5
Legal Description
Page 106 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-6
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 5
A Tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 75.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence,
South 89° 38' 43" East, 208.71 feet; thence, South 00° 21' 17" West, 208.71 feet; thence North
89° 38' 43" West, 208.71 feet; thence, North 00° 21' 17" East, 208.71 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described Tract of land contains 43,560 square feet or 1.00 acres, more or less, and is
subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_District 5.docx
Page 1 of 1
Page 107 of 309
EXHIBIT A-7
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 6
Legal Description
Page 108 of 309
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
Exhibit A-7
DESCRIPTION: RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 6
A Tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 75.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence,
South 89° 38' 43" East, 208.71 feet; thence, South 00° 21' 17" West, 208.71 feet; thence North
89° 38' 43" West, 208.71 feet; thence, North 00° 21' 17" East, 208.71 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described Tract of land contains 43,560 square feet or 1.00 acres, more or less, and is
subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
LMS
S:\Survey Jobs\1489-001\Dwg\Exhibits\Exhibit A - Legals\1489-001_District 6.docx
Page 1 of 1
Page 109 of 309
EXHIBIT B-1
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Project Area Boundary Map
Page 110 of 309
OVERALL DISTRICT
BOUNDARY MAP
1,580,513 sq.ft.
36.28 ac
OVERALL DISTRICT
BOUNDARY MAP
4,203,912 sq.ft.
96.51 ac
SOUTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
CENTER-SOUTH
SIXTEENTH CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
CENTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER
WITNESS CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
PROSPECT ROADINTERSTATE 25( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
PROJECT AREA
BOUNDARY MAP
B-1
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
1" = 400'Page 111 of 309
EXHIBIT B-2
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
Map
Page 112 of 309
PROSPECT ROAD
CENTER-SOUTH
SIXTEENTH CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
CENTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER
WITNESS CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
DISTRICT 1
43,560 sq.ft.
1.00 ac
SOUTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68WINTERSTATE 25DISTRICT 1
1,580,513 sq.ft.
36.28 ac
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
DISTRICT 1 AREA
BOUNDARY MAP
B-2
1" = 400'
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
Page 113 of 309
EXHIBIT B-3
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 2-6
Map
Page 114 of 309
PROSPECT ROAD
CENTER-SOUTH
SIXTEENTH CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
CENTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER
WITNESS CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
DISTRICTS 2-6
43,560 sq.ft.
1.00 ac
SOUTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68WINTERSTATE 25RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
DISTRICTS 2-6 AREA
BOUNDARY MAP
B-3
1" = 400'
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
Page 115 of 309
EXHIBIT B-4
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Estimated Future Boundary Map
Page 116 of 309
PROSPECT ROAD
CENTER-SOUTH
SIXTEENTH CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
CENTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER
WITNESS CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
DISTRICT 1
FUTURE
DISTRICT 3
FUTURE
DISTRICT 2
FUTURE
DISTRICT 4
FUTURE
DISTRICT 5
DISTRICTS 1-6
SOUTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68W
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 15-T7N-R68WINTERSTATE 25RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
B-4
1" = 400'
DISTRICT 1
ESTIMATED DISTRICT 2
ESTIMATED DISTRICT 3
ESTIMATED DISTRICT 4
ESTIMATED DISTRICT 5
FUTURE
FUTURE
FUTUREFUTURE
DISTRICTS 1-6
ESTIMATED DISTRICTS 1-6
BOUNDARY MAP
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
Page 117 of 309
EXHIBIT C
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Vicinity Map
Page 118 of 309
PROSPECT ROAD INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROADSUMMIT
V
IEW
DR
.GREENFIELD CT.BOXELDER DR.
CARRI
A
G
E
P
K
W
Y
KITCHELL WAY
PROPOSED
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
VICINITY MAP
C
1" = 1000'
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet010001000
1000
Page 119 of 309
EXHIBIT D
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan
Page 120 of 309
Public Improvements Unit Cost Extended Cost
I. Grading/Miscellaneous
Mobilization / General Conditions 1 LS $3,519,000.00 3,519,000.00$
Clearing and Grubbing and Topsoil Stripping 133 Ac $11,900.00 1,580,201.00$
Earthwork (cut/fill/place)214,235 CY $6.00 1,285,410.00$
Import Fill Dirt 500,000 CY $10.00 5,000,000.00$
Erosion Control / Traffic Control 1 LS $5,027,000.00 5,027,000.00$
Subtotal 16,411,611.00$
II. Roadway Improvements
Parking Lots - SY $70.00 -$
Access Road (24' Section)- LF $205.00 -$
Local Residential Street (51' Section)6,322 LF $273.00 1,725,906.00$
Local Industrial Street (66' Section)6,810 LF $321.00 2,186,010.00$
Local Commercial Street (72' Section)- LF $336.00 -$
Minor Collector Street (76' Section)2,746 LF $431.00 1,183,526.00$
Roundabout 1 EA $2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00$
Box Culvert Bridge 3 EA $1,000,000.00 3,000,000.00$
Prospect Road Widening (Half 4-Lane Arterial)2,220 LF $637.00 1,414,140.00$
Frontage Road Reconstruct (2-Lane Arterial 84' Section)3,240 LF $666.00 2,157,840.00$
Traffic Signal Improvements 1 EA $500,000.00 500,000.00$
Street Lighting 1 LS $587,000.00 587,000.00$
Signing and Striping 1 LS $441,000.00 441,000.00$
Subtotal 15,695,422.00$
III.Potable Waterline Improvements
8" Waterline 12,851 LF $90.00 1,156,590.00$
10" Waterline - LF $100.00 -$
12" Waterline 8,442 LF $112.00 945,504.00$
Utility Borings 300 LF $1,900.00 570,000.00$
Raw Water Requirements 177 AC-FT $41,428.00 7,316,185.00$
Off-Site Waterline Reimbursement to ELCO 1 LS $750,000.00 750,000.00$
Subtotal 10,738,279.00$
IV. Sanitary Sewer and Subdrain Improvements
8" Sanitary Sewer 11,423 LF $109.00 1,245,107.00$
10" Sanitary Sewer - LF $114.00 -$
12" Sanitary Sewer 7,867 LF $124.00 975,508.00$
27" Sanitary Sewer - LF $197.00 -$
8" Subdrain 15,751 LF $75.00 1,181,325.00$
Subdrain Connection Fee - LS $43,000.00 -$
Sanitary Sewer Repayment 275 TAP $1,898.00 521,950.00$
Subtotal 3,923,890.00$
V. Storm Drainage Improvements
24" RCP Storm Sewer - LF $191.00 -$
24" CMP Storm Sewer - LF $163.00 -$
36" RCP Storm Sewer 14,071 LF $222.00 3,123,762.00$
48" RCP Storm Sewer - LF $324.00 -$
Outlet Structure 5 EA $10,000.00 50,000.00$
Water Quality 122,013 CF $6.00 732,080.00$
Subtotal 3,905,842.00$
SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
January 31, 2018
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1-6
Quantity
COMBINED AREA - 132.79 ACRES
Page 1 of 2Page 121 of 309
Public Improvements Unit Cost Extended Cost
SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
January 31, 2018
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1-6
Quantity
COMBINED AREA - 132.79 ACRES
VI. Non-Potable Irrigation Improvements
6" Non-Potable Waterline 18,867 LF $56.00 1,056,552.00$
Non-Potable Waterline Pumphouse 1 LS $450,000.00 450,000.00$
Non-Potable Pond and Delivery Improvements 1 LS $250,000.00 250,000.00$
Flood Irrigation System and Appurtences - LS $0.00 -$
Well Head Replacement - EA $27,500.00 -$
Raw Water Requirements 57 AC-FT $41,428.00 2,345,654.00$
Subtotal 4,102,206.00$
VII. Open Space, Parks and Trails
Structural Demolition - LS $0.00 -$
Natural Area Open Space 8 AC $108,900.00 914,760.00$
Landscaped Open Space 6 AC $239,580.00 1,533,312.00$
Regional Trails 7,550 LF $160.00 1,208,000.00$
Monument Signs 3 EA $75,000.00 225,000.00$
Pocket Park and Park Amenities 1 EA $150,000.00 150,000.00$
Open Space Acquisition - AC $20,000.00 -$
Subtotal 4,031,072.00$
VIII. Admin. / Design / Permitting / Etc.
Engineering / Surveying 1 LS $5,881,000.00 5,881,000.00$
Construction Management / Inspection / Testing 1 LS $8,822,000.00 8,822,000.00$
Admin. / Planning / Permitting 1 LS $1,765,000.00 1,765,000.00$
Subtotal 16,468,000.00$
Infrastructure Subtotal 75,276,322.00$
Contingency (20%) 15,055,265.00$
Total Cost 90,331,587.00$
Page 2 of 2Page 122 of 309
INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROAD
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
ROUNDABOUT
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
STREET MAP
D
LEGEND:
1" = 400'
STREETS OWNED AND
MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
1
2 4-LANE
ARTERIAL STREET
LOCAL STREET
NOTE: LOCAL STREETS
AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES
ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
MAY CHANGE AS
DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
FIGURE 1 OF 6
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
COLLECTOR
STREET
INDUSTRIAL
LOCAL STREET
2-LANE ARTERIAL
STREET
Page 123 of 309
WWWWW W W
WWW
W
WW WWWWW WW
W W
W W WW12" WATER
8" WATER
INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROAD
W
W
W W W
W W W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
12" WATER
LINE BORE
W
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
POTABLE WATER MAP
D
1" = 400'
WATER LINE - 12 INCH PVC.
ALL WATER TO BE OWNED AND
MAINTAINED BY ELCO WATER
DISTRICT.
LEGEND:
W
WATER LINE - 8 INCH PVC.
ALL WATER TO BE OWNED AND
MAINTAINED BY ELCO WATER
DISTRICT.
W
FIGURE 2 OF 6
NOTE: LOCAL STREETS
AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES
ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
MAY CHANGE AS
DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
Page 124 of 309
SSSDSSSSSS
SS
S
S
SSSDSDSD
SD
S
D
SDSDSSSD
SS
SD SSSSSDSDS
S
SSSD12" SANITARY
SEWER
8" SANITARY
SEWER
INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROAD
SSSD
SS SSSDSD
SSSD
SSSDSSSD
SSSDSS
SS SS
SD
SD SD
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
D
SS SSSDSD
8" SUBDRAIN
TIE TO
BOXELDER
SANITATION
SS
SS
S
S
SD
S
D
S
D
SD8" SANITARY
SEWER
8" SUBDRAIN
SS
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
SANITARY SEWER &
SUBDRAIN MAP
D
1" = 400'
SEWER LINE - 12 INCH PVC.
ALL SEWER TO BE OWNED
AND MAINTAINED BY BOXELDER
SANITATION DISTRICT.
SEWER LINE - 8 INCH PVC.
ALL SEWER TO BE OWNED
AND MAINTAINED BY BOXELDER
SANITATION DISTRICT.
SS
LEGEND:LEGEND:
FIGURE 3 OF 6
SUBDRAIN - 8 INCH HDPE.
ALL SUBDRAINS TO BE
OWNED AND MAINTAINED
METRO DISTRICT.
SD
NOTE: LOCAL STREETS AND
ASSOCIATED UTILITIES ARE
CONCEPTUAL AND MAY CHANGE AS
DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
Page 125 of 309
STSTSTSTSTSTINTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROAD
36" STORM
DRAIN
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
STORM DRAINAGE MAP
D
1" = 400'
ALL STORM DRAINS WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE
OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
ALL STORM DRAINS OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO
BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY METRO DISTRICT.
FIGURE 4 OF 6
DETENTION AREA
NOTE: LOCAL STREETS AND ASSOCIATED
UTILITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND MAY
CHANGE AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
DIRECTION OF
CONVEYANCE
36" RCP STORM
DRAIN LINEST
LEGEND:
Page 126 of 309
IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRRIR
R
IRR IRR
IRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR
IR
R
IRR
IRR
IRR
IR
R
IRR IRR IRR
IRR IRR IRR
IRR IRR IRR
IRRIRR
IR
R
IRRINTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROAD
8" NON-POTABLE
IRRIGATION
IRRIGATION POND
NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION LINE
- ALL LINES ARE 8" PVC.
NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION MAP
D
1" = 400'
LEGEND:LEGEND:
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
IRR
FIGURE 5 OF 6
NOTE: LOCAL STREETS
AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES
ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
MAY CHANGE AS
DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
Page 127 of 309
INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROAD
CONNECTIVITY
LANDSCAPING w/ TRAILS
NATURAL AREA
OPEN SPACE
STREETS w/
TREE LAWN AREAS
RUDOLPH FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 - 6
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
1489-001
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
B. Ruch
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
OPEN SPACE, PARKS,
& TRAILS MAP
D
1" = 400'
FIGURE 6 OF 6
LEGEND:
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0400400
400
NOTE: LOCAL STREETS AND
ASSOCIATED UTILITIES ARE
CONCEPTUAL AND MAY CHANGE AS
DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
PARK AREA
Page 128 of 309
EXHIBIT E
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Financial Plan
Page 129 of 309
Series 2023 Series 2028 Series 2036 TOTAL
Percent
of Total
Sources
Par 42,405,000$ 34,930,000$ 104,865,000$ 182,200,000$ 95%
Funds on Hand ‐$ 9,711,458$ 9,711,458$ 5%
TOTAL:42,405,000$ 34,930,000$ 114,576,458$ 191,911,458$
Uses
Project Fund 31,012,692$ 25,198,900$ 34,005,811$ 90,217,403$ 47%
Refunding Proceeds 74,710,000$ 74,710,000$ 39%
Capitalized Interest 6,360,750$ 5,239,500$ 371,397$ 11,971,647$ 6%
Reserve Fund 3,883,458$ 3,493,000$ 4,764,925$ 12,141,383$ 6%
Costs of Issuance 1,148,100$ 998,600$ 724,325$ 2,871,025$ 1%
TOTAL:42,405,000$ 34,930,000$ 114,576,458$ 191,911,458$
Combined Sources and Uses: Rudolph Farms Metropolitan Districts
1
Page 130 of 309
RUDOLPH FAMRS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential & Commercial)
1 Development Projection at 50.000 (target) Residential Mills +50.000 (target) Commercial Mills for Debt Service (SERVICE PLAN) -- 01/30/2018
2050 Series 2036, G.O. Bonds, Pay & Cancel Refg of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money, Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
2049
Total District District District Total District District District
Assessed D/S Mill Levy* D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Assessed D/S Mill Levy* D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Total
Value [50.000 Target] Collections Collected Value [50.000 Target] Collections Collected Available
YEAR (Residential) [50.000 Cap] @ 98%@ 6% (Commercial) [50.000 Cap] @ 98%@ 6%Revenue
2017
2018 $0
2019 $0 50.000 0 0 $0 50.000 0 0 0
2020 0 50.000 0 0 0 50.000 0 0 0
2021 0 50.000 0 0 0 50.000 0 0 0
2022 0 50.000 0 0 0 50.000 0 0 0
2023 0 50.000 0 0 543,533 50.000 26,633 1,598 28,231
2024 0 50.000 0 0 6,836,303 50.000 334,979 20,099 355,078
2025 348,000 50.000 17,052 1,023 16,922,451 50.000 829,200 49,752 897,027
2026 973,004 50.000 47,677 2,861 24,174,486 50.000 1,184,550 71,073 1,306,161
2027 973,004 50.000 47,677 2,861 34,685,688 50.000 1,699,599 101,976 1,852,112
2028 1,031,385 50.000 50,538 3,032 42,647,778 50.000 2,089,741 125,384 2,268,696
2029 1,031,385 50.000 50,538 3,032 46,968,639 50.000 2,301,463 138,088 2,493,121
2030 1,093,268 50.000 53,570 3,214 54,172,341 50.000 2,654,445 159,267 2,870,496
2031 1,093,268 50.000 53,570 3,214 58,667,764 50.000 2,874,720 172,483 3,103,988
2032 1,158,864 50.000 56,784 3,407 66,751,468 50.000 3,270,822 196,249 3,527,263
2033 1,158,864 50.000 56,784 3,407 71,066,956 50.000 3,482,281 208,937 3,751,409
2034 1,228,396 50.000 60,191 3,611 75,330,973 50.000 3,691,218 221,473 3,976,494
2035 1,228,396 50.000 60,191 3,611 75,330,973 50.000 3,691,218 221,473 3,976,494
2036 1,302,099 50.000 63,803 3,828 79,850,832 50.000 3,912,691 234,761 4,215,083
2037 1,302,099 50.000 63,803 3,828 79,850,832 50.000 3,912,691 234,761 4,215,083
2038 1,380,225 50.000 67,631 4,058 84,641,882 50.000 4,147,452 248,847 4,467,988
2039 1,380,225 50.000 67,631 4,058 84,641,882 50.000 4,147,452 248,847 4,467,988
2040 1,463,039 50.000 71,689 4,301 89,720,395 50.000 4,396,299 263,778 4,736,068
2041 1,463,039 50.000 71,689 4,301 89,720,395 50.000 4,396,299 263,778 4,736,068
2042 1,550,821 50.000 75,990 4,559 95,103,618 50.000 4,660,077 279,605 5,020,232
2043 1,550,821 50.000 75,990 4,559 95,103,618 50.000 4,660,077 279,605 5,020,232
2044 1,643,870 50.000 80,550 4,833 100,809,835 50.000 4,939,682 296,381 5,321,445
2045 1,643,870 50.000 80,550 4,833 100,809,835 50.000 4,939,682 296,381 5,321,445
2046 1,742,503 50.000 85,383 5,123 106,858,426 50.000 5,236,063 314,164 5,640,732
2047 1,742,503 50.000 85,383 5,123 106,858,426 50.000 5,236,063 314,164 5,640,732
2048 1,847,053 50.000 90,506 5,430 113,269,931 50.000 5,550,227 333,014 5,979,176
2049 1,847,053 50.000 90,506 5,430 113,269,931 50.000 5,550,227 333,014 5,979,176
2050 1,957,876 50.000 95,936 5,756 120,066,127 50.000 5,883,240 352,994 6,337,927
2051 1,957,876 50.000 95,936 5,756 120,066,127 50.000 5,883,240 352,994 6,337,927
2052 2,075,348 50.000 101,692 6,102 127,270,095 50.000 6,236,235 374,174 6,718,202
2053 2,075,348 50.000 101,692 6,102 127,270,095 50.000 6,236,235 374,174 6,718,202
2054 2,199,869 50.000 107,794 6,468 134,906,300 50.000 6,610,409 396,625 7,121,294
2055 2,199,869 50.000 107,794 6,468 134,906,300 50.000 6,610,409 396,625 7,121,294
2056 2,331,861 50.000 114,261 6,856 143,000,678 50.000 7,007,033 420,422 7,548,572
2057 2,331,861 50.000 114,261 6,856 143,000,678 50.000 7,007,033 420,422 7,548,572
2058 2,471,773 50.000 121,117 7,267 151,580,719 50.000 7,427,455 445,647 8,001,486
2059 2,471,773 50.000 121,117 7,267 151,580,719 50.000 7,427,455 445,647 8,001,486
2060 2,620,080 50.000 128,384 7,703 160,675,562 50.000 7,873,103 472,386 8,481,576
2061 2,620,080 50.000 128,384 7,703 160,675,562 50.000 7,873,103 472,386 8,481,576
2062 2,777,284 50.000 136,087 8,165 170,316,096 50.000 8,345,489 500,729 8,990,470
2063 2,777,284 50.000 136,087 8,165 170,316,096 50.000 8,345,489 500,729 8,990,470
2064 2,943,921 50.000 144,252 8,655 180,535,062 50.000 8,846,218 530,773 9,529,898
2065 2,943,921 50.000 144,252 8,655 180,535,062 50.000 8,846,218 530,773 9,529,898
2066 3,120,557 50.000 152,907 9,174 191,367,165 50.000 9,376,991 562,619 10,101,692
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
3,677,628 220,658 219,651,204 13,179,072 236,728,562
[*] The Districts may also levy up to 20.00 Mills for Operations & Maintenance + 10.00 Mills for the Overlay District Project Mill Levy
1/30/2018 B RFMD#1-6 Fin Plan 18 Master NR LF FP SP+2036 Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
2
1
2050
2049
YEAR
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
RUDOLPH FAMRS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential & Commercial)
Development Projection at 50.000 (target) Residential Mills +50.000 (target) Commercial Mills for Debt Service (SERVICE PLAN) -- 01/30/2018
Series 2036, G.O. Bonds, Pay & Cancel Refg of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money, Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
Ser. 2023 Ser. 2028 Ser. 2036
$42,405,000 Par $34,930,000 Par $104,865,000 Par Surplus Cov. of Net DS: Cov. of Net DS:
[Net $31.013 MM] [Net $25.199 MM] [Net $34.006 MM] Total Annual Release @ Cumulative @ Res'l Target @ Res'l Cap
Net Available Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Funds on Hand* Surplus 50% D/A Surplus @ Comm'l Target @ Comm'l Cap
for Debt Svc Service Service Service Service Used as Source to $10,486,500 $10,486,500 Target & Sales PIF Revs & Sales PIF Revs
$0
0
0
0
0
28,231 $0 0 28,231 0 28,231 0% 0%
355,078 0 0 355,078 0 383,309 0% 0%
897,027 0 0 897,027 0 1,280,336 0% 0%
1,306,161 0 0 1,306,161 0 2,586,497 0% 0%
1,852,112 2,120,250 2,120,250 (268,138) 0 2,318,359 87% 87%
2,268,696 2,140,250 $0 2,140,250 128,446 0 2,446,805 106% 106%
2,493,121 2,139,250 0 2,139,250 353,871 0 2,800,676 117% 117%
2,870,496 2,268,250 0 2,268,250 602,246 0 3,402,922 127% 127%
3,103,988 2,270,750 0 2,270,750 833,238 0 4,236,160 137% 137%
3,527,263 2,402,750 1,746,500 4,149,250 (621,987) 0 3,614,172 85% 85%
3,751,409 2,402,750 1,746,500 4,149,250 (397,841) 0 3,216,331 90% 90%
3,976,494 2,552,000 1,746,500 4,298,500 (322,006) 0 2,894,325 93% 93%
3,976,494 2,548,000 1,746,500 4,294,500 (318,006) 0 2,576,319 93% 93%
4,215,083 2,703,000 1,746,500 $0 4,449,500 2,335,000 (2,569,417) 0 6,902 95% 95%
4,215,083 [Ref'd by Ser. '36] [Ref'd by Ser. '36]4,085,366 4,085,366 129,718 0 136,619 103%103%
4,467,988 4,466,763 4,466,763 1,226 0 137,845 100%100%
4,467,988 4,466,338 4,466,338 1,651 0 139,496 100%100%
4,736,068 4,735,913 4,735,913 155 0 139,651 100%100%
4,736,068 4,734,013 4,734,013 2,055 0 141,706 100%100%
5,020,232 5,016,688 5,016,688 3,544 0 145,250 100%100%
5,020,232 5,016,825 5,016,825 3,407 0 148,657 100%100%
5,321,445 5,320,900 5,320,900 545 0 149,202 100%100%
5,321,445 5,320,950 5,320,950 495 0 149,698 100%100%
5,640,732 5,639,300 5,639,300 1,432 0 151,130 100%100%
5,640,732 5,637,350 5,637,350 3,382 0 154,512 100%100%
5,979,176 5,978,063 5,978,063 1,114 0 155,626 100%100%
5,979,176 5,976,775 5,976,775 2,401 0 158,027 100%100%
6,337,927 6,337,300 6,337,300 627 0 158,654 100%100%
6,337,927 6,334,125 6,334,125 3,802 0 162,455 100%100%
6,718,202 6,716,913 6,716,913 1,290 0 163,745 100%100%
6,718,202 6,714,088 6,714,088 4,115 0 167,860 100%100%
7,121,294 7,121,163 7,121,163 132 0 167,992 100%100%
7,121,294 7,120,500 7,120,500 794 0 168,786 100%100%
7,548,572 7,548,463 7,548,463 110 0 168,896 100%100%
7,548,572 7,546,563 7,546,563 2,010 0 170,906 100%100%
8,001,486 7,997,013 7,997,013 4,474 0 175,379 100%100%
8,001,486 8,000,263 8,000,263 1,224 0 176,603 100%100%
8,481,576 8,479,163 8,479,163 2,413 0 179,017 100%100%
8,481,576 8,478,100 8,478,100 3,476 0 182,492 100%100%
8,990,470 8,986,200 8,986,200 4,270 0 186,762 100%100%
8,990,470 8,986,363 8,986,363 4,108 0 190,870 100%100%
9,529,898 9,528,775 9,528,775 1,123 0 191,993 100%100%
9,529,898 9,529,850 9,529,850 48 0 192,042 100%100%
10,101,692 10,101,125 10,101,125 567 192,609 0 100%100%
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
236,728,562 23,547,250 8,732,500 201,921,203 234,200,953 2,335,000 192,609 192,609
[BJan3018 23nrspB] [BJan3018 28nrspB] [BJan3018 36igrfB]
1/30/2018 B RFMD#1-6 Fin Plan 18 Master NR LF FP SP+2036 Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
3
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential)
1 Development Projection at 50.000 (target) District Mills for Debt Service -- 01/30/2018
2050 Assessed Value Summary
2049
< < < < < < < < Residential > > > > > > > >< Platted/Developed Lots > < < < < < < < < < < Commercial > > > > > > > > > >
Mkt Value As'ed Value As'ed Value Mkt Value As'ed Value
Biennial @ 7.20%@ 29.00%Biennial @ 29.00%Total
Total Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Cumulative of Market Total Comm'l Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Assessed
YEAR Res'l Units @ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag) Market Value (2-yr lag)Sq. Ft. @ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag)Value
2017 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 0
2024 60 0 13,513,949 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2025 0 13,513,949 0 0 348,000 0 0 0 348,000
2026 0 810,837 14,324,786 973,004 0 0 0 0 0 0 973,004
2027 0 14,324,786 973,004 0 0 0 0 0 973,004
2028 0 859,487 15,184,273 1,031,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,031,385
2029 0 15,184,273 1,031,385 0 0 0 0 0 1,031,385
2030 0 911,056 16,095,330 1,093,268 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,093,268
2031 0 16,095,330 1,093,268 0 0 0 0 0 1,093,268
2032 0 965,720 17,061,049 1,158,864 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,158,864
2033 0 17,061,049 1,158,864 0 0 0 0 0 1,158,864
2034 0 1,023,663 18,084,712 1,228,396 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,228,396
2035 0 18,084,712 1,228,396 0 0 0 0 0 1,228,396
2036 0 1,085,083 19,169,795 1,302,099 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,302,099
2037 0 19,169,795 1,302,099 0 0 0 0 0 1,302,099
2038 1,150,188 20,319,983 1,380,225 0 0 0 0 0 1,380,225
2039 20,319,983 1,380,225 0 0 0 0 1,380,225
2040 1,219,199 21,539,182 1,463,039 0 0 0 0 0 1,463,039
2041 21,539,182 1,463,039 0 0 0 0 1,463,039
2042 1,292,351 22,831,533 1,550,821 0 0 0 0 0 1,550,821
2043 22,831,533 1,550,821 0 0 0 0 1,550,821
2044 1,369,892 24,201,424 1,643,870 0 0 0 0 0 1,643,870
2045 24,201,424 1,643,870 0 0 0 0 1,643,870
2046 1,452,085 25,653,510 1,742,503 0 0 0 0 0 1,742,503
2047 25,653,510 1,742,503 0 0 0 0 1,742,503
2048 1,539,211 27,192,721 1,847,053 0 0 0 0 0 1,847,053
2049 27,192,721 1,847,053 0 0 0 0 1,847,053
2050 1,631,563 28,824,284 1,957,876 0 0 0 0 0 1,957,876
2051 28,824,284 1,957,876 0 0 0 0 1,957,876
2052 1,729,457 30,553,741 2,075,348 0 0 0 0 0 2,075,348
2053 30,553,741 2,075,348 0 0 0 0 2,075,348
2054 1,833,224 32,386,965 2,199,869 0 0 0 0 0 2,199,869
2055 32,386,965 2,199,869 0 0 0 0 2,199,869
2056 1,943,218 34,330,183 2,331,861 0 0 0 0 0 2,331,861
2057 34,330,183 2,331,861 0 0 0 0 2,331,861
2058 2,059,811 36,389,994 2,471,773 0 0 0 0 0 2,471,773
2059 36,389,994 2,471,773 0 0 0 0 2,471,773
2060 2,183,400 38,573,394 2,620,080 0 0 0 0 0 2,620,080
2061 38,573,394 2,620,080 0 0 0 0 2,620,080
2062 2,314,404 40,887,797 2,777,284 0 0 0 0 0 2,777,284
2063 40,887,797 2,777,284 0 0 0 0 2,777,284
2064 2,453,268 43,341,065 2,943,921 0 0 0 0 0 2,943,921
2065 43,341,065 2,943,921 0 0 0 0 2,943,921
2066 2,600,464 45,941,529 3,120,557 0 0 0 0 0 3,120,557
______ ____________________ __________
60 32,427,580 00
1/30/2018 B RFMD#1-6 Fin Plan 18 R AV Summary
Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
4
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential)
Development Summary
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 1/23/18)
Residential Development
Product Type
Assissted Living TH Condo SFD - Standard SFD - Premier
Base $ ('18)$200,000 $375,000 $385,000 $475,000 $575,000
Res'l Totals
2017 - - - - - -
2018 - - - - - -
2019 - - - - - -
2020 - - - - - -
2021 - - - - - -
2022 - - - - - -
2023 - - - - - -
2024 60 - - - - 60
2025 - - - - - -
2026 - - - - - -
2027 - - - - - -
2028 - - - - - -
2029 - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - -
2031 - - - - - -
2032 - - - - - -
2033 - - - - - -
2034 - - - - - -
2035 - - - - - -
2036 - - - - - -
2037 - - - - - -
60 - - - - 60
MV @ Full Buildout $12,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000,000
(base prices;un-infl.)
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
1/30/2018 B RFMD#1-6 Fin Plan 18 R Dev Summ Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
5
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Commercial)
1 Development Projection at 50.000 (target) District Mills for Debt Service -- 01/30/2018
2050 Assessed Value Summary
2049
< < < < < < < < Residential > > > > > > > >< Platted/Developed Lots >< < < < < < < < < < Commercial > > > > > > > > > >
Mkt Value As'ed Value As'ed Value Mkt Value As'ed Value
Biennial @ 7.20%@ 29.00%Biennial @ 29.00%Total
Total Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Cumulative of Market Total Comm'l Total Hotel Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Assessed
YEAR Res'l Units @ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag) Market Value (2-yr lag)Sq. Ft. Rooms @ 6.0%Market Value (2-yr lag)Value
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0 1,874,250 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0 0 3,285,975 0 110,035 0 0 20,287,485 0 0
2023 0 0 0 1,785,975 543,533 104,685 120 56,567,304 0 543,533
2024 0 0 0 0 3,285,975 952,933 104,685 0 3,394,038 80,074,321 5,883,371 6,836,303
2025 0 0 0 1,785,975 517,933 104,685 120 117,819,845 16,404,518 16,922,451
2026 0 0 0 0 1,246,725 952,933 104,685 0 7,069,191 145,814,580 23,221,553 24,174,486
2027 0 0 0 1,246,725 517,933 83,115 0 160,714,097 34,167,755 34,685,688
2028 0 0 0 0 1,246,725 361,550 83,115 0 9,642,846 185,554,452 42,286,228 42,647,778
2029 0 0 0 1,246,725 361,550 83,115 0 201,055,910 46,607,088 46,968,639
2030 0 0 0 0 1,246,725 361,550 83,115 0 12,063,355 228,930,752 53,810,791 54,172,341
2031 0 0 0 0 361,550 83,115 0 245,058,469 58,306,214 58,667,764
2032 0 0 0 0 0 361,550 0 0 14,703,508 259,761,977 66,389,918 66,751,468
2033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 259,761,977 71,066,956 71,066,956
2034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,585,719 275,347,696 75,330,973 75,330,973
2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275,347,696 75,330,973 75,330,973
2036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,520,862 291,868,558 79,850,832 79,850,832
2037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 291,868,558 79,850,832 79,850,832
2038 0 0 0 0 0 17,512,113 309,380,671 84,641,882 84,641,882
2039 0 0 0 0 309,380,671 84,641,882 84,641,882
2040 0 0 0 0 0 18,562,840 327,943,512 89,720,395 89,720,395
2041 0 0 0 0 327,943,512 89,720,395 89,720,395
2042 0 0 0 0 0 19,676,611 347,620,122 95,103,618 95,103,618
2043 0 0 0 0 347,620,122 95,103,618 95,103,618
2044 0 0 0 0 0 20,857,207 368,477,330 100,809,835 100,809,835
2045 0 0 0 0 368,477,330 100,809,835 100,809,835
2046 0 0 0 0 0 22,108,640 390,585,969 106,858,426 106,858,426
2047 0 0 0 0 390,585,969 106,858,426 106,858,426
2048 0 0 0 0 0 23,435,158 414,021,127 113,269,931 113,269,931
2049 0 0 0 0 414,021,127 113,269,931 113,269,931
2050 0 0 0 0 0 24,841,268 438,862,395 120,066,127 120,066,127
2051 0 0 0 0 438,862,395 120,066,127 120,066,127
2052 0 0 0 0 0 26,331,744 465,194,139 127,270,095 127,270,095
2053 0 0 0 0 465,194,139 127,270,095 127,270,095
2054 0 0 0 0 0 27,911,648 493,105,787 134,906,300 134,906,300
2055 0 0 0 0 493,105,787 134,906,300 134,906,300
2056 0 0 0 0 0 29,586,347 522,692,134 143,000,678 143,000,678
2057 0 0 0 0 522,692,134 143,000,678 143,000,678
2058 0 0 0 0 0 31,361,528 554,053,662 151,580,719 151,580,719
2059 0 0 0 0 554,053,662 151,580,719 151,580,719
2060 0 0 0 0 0 33,243,220 587,296,882 160,675,562 160,675,562
2061 0 0 0 0 587,296,882 160,675,562 160,675,562
2062 0 0 0 0 0 35,237,813 622,534,695 170,316,096 170,316,096
2063 0 0 0 0 622,534,695 170,316,096 170,316,096
2064 0 0 0 0 0 37,352,082 659,886,777 180,535,062 180,535,062
2065 0 0 0 0 659,886,777 180,535,062 180,535,062
2066 0 0 0 0 0 39,593,207 699,479,983 191,367,165 191,367,165
______ ____________________ __________ __________
00 944,350 240 486,590,944
1/30/2018 B RFMD#1-6 Fin Plan 18 C AV Summary
Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
6
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Commercial)
Development Summary
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 1/23/18)
Commercial Development
Product Type
Retail Convenience
Store
Industrial /
Employment Hotel
Base $ ('18)$250/sf $165/sf $150/sf $125,000/Rm
Comm'l Totals*
2017 - - - - -
2018 - - - - -
2019 - - - - -
2020 - - - - -
2021 - - - - -
2022 21,570 5,350 83,115 - 110,035
2023 21,570 - 83,115 120 104,805
2024 21,570 - 83,115 - 104,685
2025 21,570 - 83,115 120 104,805
2026 21,570 - 83,115 - 104,685
2027 - - 83,115 - 83,115
2028 - - 83,115 - 83,115
2029 - - 83,115 - 83,115
2030 - - 83,115 - 83,115
2031 - - 83,115 - 83,115
2032 - - - - -
2033 - - - - -
2034 - - - - -
2035 - - - - -
2036 - - - - -
2037 - - - - -
107,850 5,350 831,150 240 944,590
MV @ Full Buildout $26,962,500 $882,750 $124,672,500 $30,000,000 $182,517,750
(base prices;un-infl.)
[*] Not including Hotels; presented in Rooms
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
1/30/2018 B RFMD#1-6 Fin Plan 18 C Dev Summ Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
7
Jan 30, 2018 8:38 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-6 18 (fka ...:BJAN3018-23NRSPB)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2023
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Non-Rated, 105x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Growth thru 2026 + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2023
Delivery Date 12/01/2023
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 42,405,000.00
42,405,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 31,012,691.67
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 6,360,750.00
Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,883,458.33
10,244,208.33
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 300,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 848,100.00
1,148,100.00
42,405,000.00
8
Jan 30, 2018 8:43 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-6 18 (fka ...:BJAN3018-28NRSPB)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2028
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Non-Rated, 105x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Growth thru 2031 + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2028
Delivery Date 12/01/2028
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 34,930,000.00
34,930,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 25,198,900.00
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 5,239,500.00
Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,493,000.00
8,732,500.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 300,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 698,600.00
998,600.00
34,930,000.00
9
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2036
Delivery Date 12/01/2036
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 104,865,000.00
Other Sources of Funds:
Funds on Hand* 2,335,000.00
Series 2023 - DSRF 3,883,458.00
Series 2028 - DSRF 3,493,000.00
9,711,458.00
114,576,458.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 34,005,811.12
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit* 74,710,000.00
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 371,396.88
Debt Service Reserve Fund 4,764,925.00
5,136,321.88
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 200,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 524,325.00
724,325.00
114,576,458.00
[*] Estimated balances (tbd).
10
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2036
Delivery Date 12/01/2036
First Coupon 06/01/2037
Last Maturity 12/01/2066
Arbitrage Yield 4.250000%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.285261%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.250000%
All-In TIC 4.298777%
Average Coupon 4.250000%
Average Life (years)22.930
Weighted Average Maturity (years)22.930
Duration of Issue (years)14.505
Par Amount 104,865,000.00
Bond Proceeds 104,865,000.00
Total Interest 102,192,525.00
Net Interest 102,716,850.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 2,404,530,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 2,404,530,000.00
Total Debt Service 207,057,525.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 14,866,050.00
Average Annual Debt Service 6,901,917.50
Underwriter's Fees (per $1000)
Average Takedown
Other Fee 5.000000
Total Underwriter's Discount 5.000000
Bid Price 99.500000
Average
Par Average Average Maturity PV of 1 bp
Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life Date change
Term Bond due 2066 104,865,000.00 100.000 4.250% 22.930 11/06/2059 177,221.85
104,865,000.00 22.930 177,221.85
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 104,865,000.00 104,865,000.00 104,865,000.00
+ Accrued Interest
+Premium (Discount)
- Underwriter's Discount -524,325.00 -524,325.00
- Cost of Issuance Expense -200,000.00
- Other Amounts
Target Value 104,340,675.00 104,140,675.00 104,865,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2036 12/01/2036 12/01/2036
Yield 4.285261%4.298777%4.250000%
11
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
BOND DEBT SERVICE
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Period Annual
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
06/01/2037 2,228,381.25 2,228,381.25
12/01/2037 2,228,381.25 2,228,381.25 4,456,762.50
06/01/2038 2,228,381.25 2,228,381.25
12/01/2038 10,000 4.250%2,228,381.25 2,238,381.25 4,466,762.50
06/01/2039 2,228,168.75 2,228,168.75
12/01/2039 10,000 4.250%2,228,168.75 2,238,168.75 4,466,337.50
06/01/2040 2,227,956.25 2,227,956.25
12/01/2040 280,000 4.250%2,227,956.25 2,507,956.25 4,735,912.50
06/01/2041 2,222,006.25 2,222,006.25
12/01/2041 290,000 4.250%2,222,006.25 2,512,006.25 4,734,012.50
06/01/2042 2,215,843.75 2,215,843.75
12/01/2042 585,000 4.250%2,215,843.75 2,800,843.75 5,016,687.50
06/01/2043 2,203,412.50 2,203,412.50
12/01/2043 610,000 4.250%2,203,412.50 2,813,412.50 5,016,825.00
06/01/2044 2,190,450.00 2,190,450.00
12/01/2044 940,000 4.250%2,190,450.00 3,130,450.00 5,320,900.00
06/01/2045 2,170,475.00 2,170,475.00
12/01/2045 980,000 4.250%2,170,475.00 3,150,475.00 5,320,950.00
06/01/2046 2,149,650.00 2,149,650.00
12/01/2046 1,340,000 4.250% 2,149,650.00 3,489,650.00 5,639,300.00
06/01/2047 2,121,175.00 2,121,175.00
12/01/2047 1,395,000 4.250% 2,121,175.00 3,516,175.00 5,637,350.00
06/01/2048 2,091,531.25 2,091,531.25
12/01/2048 1,795,000 4.250% 2,091,531.25 3,886,531.25 5,978,062.50
06/01/2049 2,053,387.50 2,053,387.50
12/01/2049 1,870,000 4.250% 2,053,387.50 3,923,387.50 5,976,775.00
06/01/2050 2,013,650.00 2,013,650.00
12/01/2050 2,310,000 4.250% 2,013,650.00 4,323,650.00 6,337,300.00
06/01/2051 1,964,562.50 1,964,562.50
12/01/2051 2,405,000 4.250% 1,964,562.50 4,369,562.50 6,334,125.00
06/01/2052 1,913,456.25 1,913,456.25
12/01/2052 2,890,000 4.250% 1,913,456.25 4,803,456.25 6,716,912.50
06/01/2053 1,852,043.75 1,852,043.75
12/01/2053 3,010,000 4.250% 1,852,043.75 4,862,043.75 6,714,087.50
06/01/2054 1,788,081.25 1,788,081.25
12/01/2054 3,545,000 4.250% 1,788,081.25 5,333,081.25 7,121,162.50
06/01/2055 1,712,750.00 1,712,750.00
12/01/2055 3,695,000 4.250% 1,712,750.00 5,407,750.00 7,120,500.00
06/01/2056 1,634,231.25 1,634,231.25
12/01/2056 4,280,000 4.250% 1,634,231.25 5,914,231.25 7,548,462.50
06/01/2057 1,543,281.25 1,543,281.25
12/01/2057 4,460,000 4.250%1,543,281.25 6,003,281.25 7,546,562.50
06/01/2058 1,448,506.25 1,448,506.25
12/01/2058 5,100,000 4.250% 1,448,506.25 6,548,506.25 7,997,012.50
06/01/2059 1,340,131.25 1,340,131.25
12/01/2059 5,320,000 4.250% 1,340,131.25 6,660,131.25 8,000,262.50
06/01/2060 1,227,081.25 1,227,081.25
12/01/2060 6,025,000 4.250% 1,227,081.25 7,252,081.25 8,479,162.50
06/01/2061 1,099,050.00 1,099,050.00
12/01/2061 6,280,000 4.250% 1,099,050.00 7,379,050.00 8,478,100.00
06/01/2062 965,600.00 965,600.00
12/01/2062 7,055,000 4.250% 965,600.00 8,020,600.00 8,986,200.00
06/01/2063 815,681.25 815,681.25
12/01/2063 7,355,000 4.250% 815,681.25 8,170,681.25 8,986,362.50
06/01/2064 659,387.50 659,387.50
12/01/2064 8,210,000 4.250% 659,387.50 8,869,387.50 9,528,775.00
06/01/2065 484,925.00 484,925.00
12/01/2065 8,560,000 4.250% 484,925.00 9,044,925.00 9,529,850.00
06/01/2066 303,025.00 303,025.00
12/01/2066 14,260,000 4.250% 303,025.00 14,563,025.00 14,866,050.00
104,865,000 102,192,525.00 207,057,525.00 207,057,525.00
12
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
NET DEBT SERVICE
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Period Total Debt Service Capitalized Net
Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Reserve Fund Interest Fund Debt Service
12/01/2037 4,456,762.50 4,456,762.50 371,396.88 4,085,365.62
12/01/2038 10,000 4,456,762.50 4,466,762.50 4,466,762.50
12/01/2039 10,000 4,456,337.50 4,466,337.50 4,466,337.50
12/01/2040 280,000 4,455,912.50 4,735,912.50 4,735,912.50
12/01/2041 290,000 4,444,012.50 4,734,012.50 4,734,012.50
12/01/2042 585,000 4,431,687.50 5,016,687.50 5,016,687.50
12/01/2043 610,000 4,406,825.00 5,016,825.00 5,016,825.00
12/01/2044 940,000 4,380,900.00 5,320,900.00 5,320,900.00
12/01/2045 980,000 4,340,950.00 5,320,950.00 5,320,950.00
12/01/2046 1,340,000 4,299,300.00 5,639,300.00 5,639,300.00
12/01/2047 1,395,000 4,242,350.00 5,637,350.00 5,637,350.00
12/01/2048 1,795,000 4,183,062.50 5,978,062.50 5,978,062.50
12/01/2049 1,870,000 4,106,775.00 5,976,775.00 5,976,775.00
12/01/2050 2,310,000 4,027,300.00 6,337,300.00 6,337,300.00
12/01/2051 2,405,000 3,929,125.00 6,334,125.00 6,334,125.00
12/01/2052 2,890,000 3,826,912.50 6,716,912.50 6,716,912.50
12/01/2053 3,010,000 3,704,087.50 6,714,087.50 6,714,087.50
12/01/2054 3,545,000 3,576,162.50 7,121,162.50 7,121,162.50
12/01/2055 3,695,000 3,425,500.00 7,120,500.00 7,120,500.00
12/01/2056 4,280,000 3,268,462.50 7,548,462.50 7,548,462.50
12/01/2057 4,460,000 3,086,562.50 7,546,562.50 7,546,562.50
12/01/2058 5,100,000 2,897,012.50 7,997,012.50 7,997,012.50
12/01/2059 5,320,000 2,680,262.50 8,000,262.50 8,000,262.50
12/01/2060 6,025,000 2,454,162.50 8,479,162.50 8,479,162.50
12/01/2061 6,280,000 2,198,100.00 8,478,100.00 8,478,100.00
12/01/2062 7,055,000 1,931,200.00 8,986,200.00 8,986,200.00
12/01/2063 7,355,000 1,631,362.50 8,986,362.50 8,986,362.50
12/01/2064 8,210,000 1,318,775.00 9,528,775.00 9,528,775.00
12/01/2065 8,560,000 969,850.00 9,529,850.00 9,529,850.00
12/01/2066 14,260,000 606,050.00 14,866,050.00 4,764,925 10,101,125.00
104,865,000 102,192,525.00 207,057,525.00 4,764,925 371,396.88 201,921,203.12
13
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Maturity Interest Par Call Call
Bond Date Rate Amount Date Price
1/30/18: Ser 23 NR LF, 5.00%, 120x, 50+50, Gro thru '26+6% BiRE, SP:
TERM53 12/01/2037 5.000% 715,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2038 5.000% 910,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2039 5.000% 955,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2040 5.000% 1,175,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2041 5.000% 1,235,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2042 5.000% 1,480,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2043 5.000% 1,555,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2044 5.000% 1,825,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2045 5.000% 1,915,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2046 5.000% 2,215,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2047 5.000% 2,330,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2048 5.000% 2,660,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2049 5.000% 2,795,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2050 5.000% 3,165,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2051 5.000% 3,320,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2052 5.000% 3,730,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2053 5.000% 7,800,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
39,780,000.00
1/30/18: Ser 28 NR LF, 5.00%, 100x, 50+50, FG+6% BiRE, SP:
TERM58 12/01/2046 5.000%5,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2047 5.000%5,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2048 5.000% 110,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2049 5.000% 115,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2050 5.000% 235,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2051 5.000% 250,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2052 5.000% 380,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2053 5.000% 395,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2054 5.000% 5,110,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2055 5.000% 5,365,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2056 5.000% 6,040,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2057 5.000% 6,340,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
12/01/2058 5.000% 10,580,000.00 12/01/2036 100.000
34,930,000.00
74,710,000.00
14
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2036
Delivery Date 12/01/2036
1/30/18: Ser 23 NR LF, 5.00%, 120x, 50+50, Gro thru '26+6% BiRE, SP
Period Principal
Ending Redeemed Total
12/01/2036 39,780,000.00 39,780,000.00
39,780,000.00 39,780,000.00
15
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2036
Delivery Date 12/01/2036
1/30/18: Ser 28 NR LF, 5.00%, 100x, 50+50, FG+6% BiRE, SP
Period Principal
Ending Redeemed Total
12/01/2036 34,930,000.00 34,930,000.00
34,930,000.00 34,930,000.00
16
Jan 30, 2018 8:49 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Rudolph Farms MD#1-...:BJAN3018-36IGRFB,36IGRFB)
PRIOR BOND DEBT SERVICE
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Nos. 1-6 (Residential + Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2036
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2023 & Series 2028 + New Money
50.000 (target) Residential Mills + 50.000 (target) Commercial Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
06/01/2037 1,867,750 1,867,750
12/01/2037 715,000 5.000% 1,867,750 2,582,750 4,450,500
06/01/2038 1,849,875 1,849,875
12/01/2038 910,000 5.000% 1,849,875 2,759,875 4,609,750
06/01/2039 1,827,125 1,827,125
12/01/2039 955,000 5.000% 1,827,125 2,782,125 4,609,250
06/01/2040 1,803,250 1,803,250
12/01/2040 1,175,000 5.000% 1,803,250 2,978,250 4,781,500
06/01/2041 1,773,875 1,773,875
12/01/2041 1,235,000 5.000% 1,773,875 3,008,875 4,782,750
06/01/2042 1,743,000 1,743,000
12/01/2042 1,480,000 5.000% 1,743,000 3,223,000 4,966,000
06/01/2043 1,706,000 1,706,000
12/01/2043 1,555,000 5.000% 1,706,000 3,261,000 4,967,000
06/01/2044 1,667,125 1,667,125
12/01/2044 1,825,000 5.000% 1,667,125 3,492,125 5,159,250
06/01/2045 1,621,500 1,621,500
12/01/2045 1,915,000 5.000% 1,621,500 3,536,500 5,158,000
06/01/2046 1,573,625 1,573,625
12/01/2046 2,220,000 5.000% 1,573,625 3,793,625 5,367,250
06/01/2047 1,518,125 1,518,125
12/01/2047 2,335,000 5.000% 1,518,125 3,853,125 5,371,250
06/01/2048 1,459,750 1,459,750
12/01/2048 2,770,000 5.000% 1,459,750 4,229,750 5,689,500
06/01/2049 1,390,500 1,390,500
12/01/2049 2,910,000 5.000% 1,390,500 4,300,500 5,691,000
06/01/2050 1,317,750 1,317,750
12/01/2050 3,400,000 5.000% 1,317,750 4,717,750 6,035,500
06/01/2051 1,232,750 1,232,750
12/01/2051 3,570,000 5.000% 1,232,750 4,802,750 6,035,500
06/01/2052 1,143,500 1,143,500
12/01/2052 4,110,000 5.000% 1,143,500 5,253,500 6,397,000
06/01/2053 1,040,750 1,040,750
12/01/2053 8,195,000 5.000% 1,040,750 9,235,750 10,276,500
06/01/2054 835,875 835,875
12/01/2054 5,110,000 5.000% 835,875 5,945,875 6,781,750
06/01/2055 708,125 708,125
12/01/2055 5,365,000 5.000% 708,125 6,073,125 6,781,250
06/01/2056 574,000 574,000
12/01/2056 6,040,000 5.000% 574,000 6,614,000 7,188,000
06/01/2057 423,000 423,000
12/01/2057 6,340,000 5.000% 423,000 6,763,000 7,186,000
06/01/2058 264,500 264,500
12/01/2058 10,580,000 5.000% 264,500 10,844,500 11,109,000
74,710,000 58,683,500 133,393,500 133,393,500
17
EXHIBIT F
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 147 of 309
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and
between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”), and
Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6, quasi-municipal corporations and political
subdivisions of the State of Colorado (collectively, the “Districts”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Districts were organized to provide those services and to exercise
powers as are more specifically set forth in the Districts’ Service Plan dated March 6, 2018,
which may be amended from time to time as set forth therein (the “Service Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the City and the property owner organizers of the Districts have entered
into that certain “Binding Agreement Pertaining to Development of the Interstate Highway 25
and Prospect Road Interchange” dated March __, 2018 (the “Binding Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Binding Agreement contemplates that the City and the Districts will
enter into a “Capital Pledge Agreement” pursuant to which the District will share in the cost of
the Colorado Department of Transportation project to improve the I-25 and Prospect Road
Interchange (the “Capital Pledge Agreement); and
WHEREAS, the Service Plan requires the execution of an intergovernmental agreement
between the City and the Districts to provide the City with contract remedies to enforce the
requirements and limitations imposed on the Districts in the Service Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Districts have determined it to be in their best interests to
enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement as provided in the Service Plan (“Agreement”).
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and mutual agreements
herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS
1. Incorporation by Reference. The Service Plan is hereby incorporated in this
agreement by this reference. The District agrees to comply with all provisions of the Service
Plan, as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the provisions thereof, and
Title 32, Article 1, C.R.S. (the “Special District Act”). Capitalized terms used herein not
otherwise defined in this Agreement shall have the meanings, respectfully, specified in the
Service Plan.
2. Imposition of Fees, Levying of Taxes and Issuance of Debt. The Districts shall not
impose any taxes, fees, rates, tolls or charges, or issue any Debt unless or until: (a) the Property
Owner has recorded the PIF Covenant (as defined in the Binding Agreement) against its property
Page 148 of 309
within the Project Area Boundaries, and (b) the City and the Overlay District have entered into
the Capital Pledge Agreement.
3. City Prior Approvals. The Districts shall obtain any prior City or City Council
approvals as required in the Service Plan before undertaking the action requiring such approval.
4. Enforcement. The parties agree that this Agreement may be enforced at law or in
equity, including actions seeking specific performance, mandamus, injunctive, or other
appropriate relief. The parties also agree that this Agreement may be enforced pursuant to Section
32-1-207, C.R.S. and other provisions of the Special District Act granting rights to municipalities
or counties approving a service plan of a special district.
5. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended, modified, changed, or terminated
in whole or in part only by a written agreement duly authorized and executed by the parties hereto.
6. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
under the applicable laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any judicial action to interpret or
enforce this Agreement shall be in Larimer County District Court of the Eighth Judicial District
for the State of Colorado.
7. Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise stated herein, this Agreement is intended to
describe the rights and responsibilities of and between the named parties and is not intended to,
and shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon any persons or entities not named as parties.
8. Effect of Invalidity. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid or
unenforceable for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both
parties, such portion shall be deemed severable and its invalidity or its unenforceability shall not
cause the entire agreement to be terminated.
9. Assignability. Neither the City nor the Districts shall assign their rights or delegate
their duties hereunder without the prior written consent of the other parties. Any assignment of
rights or delegation of duties without such prior written consent shall be deemed null and void
and of no effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City and the Districts may enter into contracts
or other agreements with third parties to perform any of their respective duties required under this
Agreement.
10. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and the rights and obligations created
hereby shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective
successors and assigns.
RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT NOS. 1-6
BY:
President
ATTEST:
Page 149 of 309
By:_______________________________
Secretary
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
Page 150 of 309
1597.0003; 884438
CERTIFICATE CONCERNING NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
IN RE THE ORGANIZATION OF RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS.
1-6, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
I, Abby Franz, an a paralegal at the law firm of White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron
Professional Corporation, acting on behalf of Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos.1-6 (the
“Districts”), do hereby certify as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Fort Collins (the “City Council”) set a public hearing
for Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, City Hall West,
300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins, Colorado (the “Hearing”), for the purpose of
considering the Consolidated Service Plan (the “Service Plan”) for the Districts and to
form a basis for adopting a resolution approving, conditionally approving or disapproving
the Service Plan;
2. That, pursuant to § 32-1-204.5, C.R.S., and the City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing
Proposed Service Plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts, dated July 9, 2008, the Notice
of Public Hearing on Consolidated Service Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, was sent by U.S. mail on February
14, 2018, more than ten (10) days prior to the Hearing, to the property owners within the
proposed Districts as listed on the records of the County Assessor, as set forth on the list
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and;
3. That the Notice of Public Hearing on Consolidated Service Plan was further published on
February 12, 2018 in The Coloradoan. A copy of the Affidavit of Publication of Notice
of Public Hearing on Consolidated Service Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by this reference
Signed this 28th day of February, 2018.
By:
Abby Franz, Paralegal
EXHIBIT B
Page 151 of 309
EXHIBIT A
TO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
(Notice of Public Hearing on Consolidated Service Plan)
Page 152 of 309
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT
IN RE THE ORGANIZATION OF RUDOLPH FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-6,
CITY OF FT. COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to § 32-1-204(1), C.R.S., a Service Plan (the “Service
Plan”) for the proposed Rudolph Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6 (“Districts”) has been filed
and is available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Ft. Collins.
A public hearing on the Service Plan will be held by the City Council of the City of Ft. Collins (the
“City Council”) on Tuesday, March 6, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, City Hall
West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins, Colorado, or as soon thereafter as the City Council may
hear such matter.
The Districts are metropolitan districts. Public improvements authorized to be planned, designed,
acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped and financed, specifically including related
eligible costs for acquisition and administration, as authorized by the Special District Act, except as
specifically limited in Section V of the Districts’ Service Plan to serve the future taxpayers and
property owners of the Districts as determined by the Board of the Districts in its discretion. The
maximum mill levy each District is permitted to impose upon the taxable property within its
boundaries and shall be Eighty (80) Mills subject to the limitations set forth in the Service Plan.
The proposed districts will be located at the northeast corner of the Prospect/I-25 Intersection. A
description of the land contained within the boundaries of the proposed Districts is as follows:
Tracts of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing
approximately 132.79 acres, as further described in the Service Plan.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to § 32-1-203(3.5), C.R.S., any person owning
property in the proposed Districts may request that such property be excluded from the Districts by
submitting such request to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County no later than ten
days prior to the public hearing.
All protests and objections must be submitted in writing to the City Manager at or prior to
the public hearing or any continuance or postponement thereof in order to be considered. All
protests and objections to the Districts shall be deemed to be waived unless presented at the
time and in the manner specified herein.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Page 153 of 309
EXHIBIT B
TO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
(Mailing List of Property Owners)
Page 154 of 309
CW Subtrust White Eric S
C/O AGUR Foundation
4 W. Dry Creek Circle, Suite 100
Littleton, CO 80120
Page 155 of 309
EXHIBIT C
TO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
(Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing on Consolidated Service Plan)
Page 156 of 309
Page 157 of 309
SERVICE PLAN
FOR
I-25/PROSPECT INTERCHANGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared by:
White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Professional Corporation
748 Whalers Way, Suite 210
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
March 6, 2018
Page 158 of 309
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
A. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................... 1
B. Need for the District................................................................................................ 1
C. Objective of the City Regarding District’s Service Plan. ....................................... 1
II. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 1
III. BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................................... 4
IV. PROPOSED LAND USE AND ASSESSED VALUATION ............................................. 4
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES ....... 4
A. Powers of the District and Service Plan Amendment. ............................................ 4
1. Operations and Maintenance....................................................................... 4
2. Inclusion and Exclusion Limitation. ........................................................... 4
3. Maximum Debt Authorization. ................................................................... 4
4. Monies from Other Governmental Sources. ............................................... 5
5. Consolidation Limitation. ........................................................................... 5
6. Eminent Domain Limitation. ...................................................................... 5
7. Service Plan Amendment Requirement. ..................................................... 5
VI. FINANCIAL PLAN............................................................................................................ 5
A. General. ................................................................................................................... 5
B. Maximum Debt Service Mill Levy. ........................................................................ 6
C. Security for Debt. .................................................................................................... 6
F. TABOR Compliance. .............................................................................................. 6
G. District’s Operating Costs. ...................................................................................... 6
H. Election. .................................................................................................................. 7
VII. ANNUAL REPORT ........................................................................................................... 7
A. General. ................................................................................................................... 7
B. Reporting of Significant Events. ............................................................................. 7
VIII. DISSOLUTION .................................................................................................................. 7
IX. PROPOSED AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND
EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS ....................................................... 8
X. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 8
XI. SANCTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 9
XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9
XIII. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ..................................................................................... 10
Page 159 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Legal Description of District Boundaries
EXHIBIT B District Boundary Map
EXHIBIT C Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT D Capital Pledge Agreement
EXHIBIT E Financial Plan
Page 160 of 309
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Intent.
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. Except as may otherwise be provided for
by State or local law or this Service Plan, the District’s activities are subject to review by the City
only insofar as they may deviate in a material manner from the requirements of this Service Plan.
This Service Plan is being submitted in connection with the redevelopment of the
interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Prospect Road (the “Interchange”), currently owned by
the State of Colorado and operated and maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation
(“CDOT”). CDOT has notified the City that it is planning a project to significantly modify and
improve the Interchange by reconstructing its ramps and bridge and by reconstructing Prospect
Road to a configuration with four (4) through lanes, a raised median, left turn lanes and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, with this work to include certain enhanced urban design elements (the
“Interchange Project”).
The City and the Property Owners have entered into a Binding Agreement with the City,
pursuant to which the Property Owners have agreed to provide for the financing of the Owners
Share (as defined therein) of the Interchange Project through the District.
In connection with the Binding Agreement and the Interchange Project, the District and the
City intend to enter into a Capital Pledge Agreement, in substantially the form and substance as
attached hereto as Exhibit D, at the District’s first meeting after the District Organization Date.
The Capital Pledge Agreement shall constitute a Debt of the District, and will set forth the
District’s obligation to pledge certain of its revenues to the payment of such Debt.
B. Need for the District.
Organization of the District is integral to the financing of the Interchange Project. The
Interchange Project will provide significant public benefits to the City and its residents, as well as
the residents, taxpayers and property owners of the District. The Capital Pledge Agreement is
necessary to finance the Interchange Project. There are currently no other governmental entities,
including the City, located in the immediate vicinity of the District that, at this time, can financially
undertake the obligations underlying the Capital Pledge Agreement. Formation of the District is
therefore necessary in order for the Interchange Project to be provided for in the most economic
manner possible.
C. Objective of the City Regarding District’s Service Plan.
The City’s objective in approving the Service Plan for the District is to authorize the
District to provide partial financing for the Interchange Project through any available revenue
sources provided for in the Capital Pledge Agreement. The District shall be dissolved upon
completion of all obligations under the Capital Pledge Agreement in accordance with Section VIII
of this Service Plan.
II. DEFINITIONS
Page 161 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
2
In this Service Plan, the following terms which appear in a capitalized format herein shall
have the meanings indicated below, unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise:
Binding Agreement: means that certain Binding Agreement Pertaining to Development of
the Interstate Highway 25 and Prospect Road Interchange entered into between the City and the
Property Owners.
Board: means the Board of Directors of the District.
Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations
for which the District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax mill levy, and other
legally available revenue, for payment. The Capital Pledge Agreement constitutes Debt for
purposes of this Service Plan. Such terms do not include annually-appropriated contracts through
which the District procures or provides services.
Capital Pledge Agreement: means that certain Capital Pledge Agreement, in substantially
the form and substance attached hereto at Exhibit D, which is to be entered into between the
District and the City at the District’s first meeting after the District Organization Date., as it may
be amended from time to time in accordance with the provisions thereof.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Any provision
of this Agreement requiring City Council approval shall be deemed to be exercised by City Council
in its sole discretion.
District: means I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District.
District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area described in the legal description
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
District Boundary Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit B.
District Organization Date: means the date the order and decree organizing the District
issued by the Larimer County District Court as required by law is recorded with the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) 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.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section VI which describes (a) how
the Interchange Project is to be financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred and either
paid in the ordinary course or defeased; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from
Page 162 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
3
property taxes or other revenue sources for the first budget year through the year in which all
District Debt is expected to be paid in the ordinary course or defeased.
Gallagher Adjustment: means, if, on or after January 1, 2018, there are changes in the
method of calculating assessed valuation or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or
abatement, the Maximum Debt Service Mill Levy may be increased or decreased to reflect such
changes, such increases and decreases to be determined by the Board in good faith (such
determination to be binding and final) so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues
generated by the applicable mill levy, as adjusted for changes occurring after January 1, 2018, are
neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of such changes. For purposes of the foregoing, a
change in the ratio of actual valuation shall be deemed to be a change in the method of calculating
assessed valuation.
Interchange: means the existing interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Prospect Road.
Interchange Project or Project: means the project to significantly modify and improve the
Interchange, including the reconstruction of its ramps and bridge, and the reconstruction of
Prospect Road to a configuration with four (4) through lanes, raised median, left turn lanes and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, with this work to include certain enhanced urban design elements.
Maximum Debt Service Mill Levy: means the maximum mill levy the District is permitted
to impose under this Service Plan for payment of Debt as set forth in Section VI.B. below.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the District is permitted to issue as set
forth in Section V.A.3.
Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy: means the mill levy the District is permitted to
impose for payment of operations as set forth in the Financial Plan.
Property Owners: means, collectively, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, Gateway at Prospect Apartments, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, Land Acquisition and Management, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
representing a group of tenants in common, Paradigm Properties LLC, a California limited liability
company, and Colorado State University Research Foundation, a Colorado non-profit corporation.
Public Improvements: means the improvements related to the Interchange Project.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the District approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means an amendment to the Service Plan approved by the City
Council in accordance with applicable state law or as provided in this Service Plan.
Special District Act or “Act”: means Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes,
as amended from time to time.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Vicinity Map: means the map of the regional area surrounding the Project.
Page 163 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
4
III. BOUNDARIES
The District Boundaries include approximately Four Hundred Seventy One (471) acres. A
legal description of the District Boundaries is attached as Exhibit A. A District Boundary Map is
attached hereto as Exhibit B. And, a Vicinity Map is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
IV. PROPOSED LAND USE AND ASSESSED VALUATION
The District consists of approximately Four Hundred Seventy One (471) acres of planned
mixed-use land. The current assessed valuation of the District Boundaries is approximately Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) and, at build out, is expected to be sufficient to reasonably
discharge the Debt as contemplated in the Capital Pledge Agreement. Approval of this Service
Plan by the City does not imply its approval of the development of a specific area within the
District.
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES
A. Powers of the District and Service Plan Amendment.
The District shall have the power and authority to finance a portion of the costs of
the Interchange Project from revenues lawfully received within the boundaries of the District as
such power and authority is described in the Special District Act, and other applicable statutes,
common law and the State Constitution, subject to the limitations set forth herein, and in
accordance with the Capital Pledge Agreement.
1. Operations and Maintenance. The purpose of the District is to finance a
portion of the costs of the Interchange Project in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
Capital Pledge Agreement. The District may provide operation and maintenance services related
to any Public Improvements in accordance with a subsequent intergovernmental agreement with
the City. In addition, the District shall be authorized to impose the Operation and Maintenance
Mill Levy to fund ordinary administrative or ministerial expenses, including but not limited to
those expenses required to keep the District in compliance with all applicable local, state, and
federal laws and regulations.
2. Inclusion and Exclusion Limitation. The District shall not include or
exclude any property within the District Boundaries without the prior resolution approval of the
City Council and in compliance with the Special District Act, and if so approved, shall not
constitute a material modification of this Service Plan.
3. Maximum Debt Authorization. The District anticipates issuing
approximately Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) (the “Maximum Debt Authorization”) in par
value Debt, plus repayment costs as agreed to in the Capital Pledge Agreement, to pay a portion
of such Interchange Project costs as required under the Capital Pledge Agreement. The District’s
Maximum Debt Authorization shall not be exceeded under any circumstances. The District must
seek resolution approval by the City Council before issuing any Debt in excess of the Maximum
Debt Authorization. Such Council approval shall not constitute a material modification of this
Service Plan so long as increases are reasonably related to the Interchange Project, the Binding
Page 164 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
5
Agreement or the Capital Pledge Agreement. The District shall not issue any Debt other than the
Capital Pledge Agreement.
4. Monies from Other Governmental Sources. The District shall not apply for
or accept Conservation Trust Funds, Great Outdoors Colorado Funds, or other funds available
from or through governmental or non-profit entities for which the City is eligible to apply for,
except pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. This Section shall not apply to
specific ownership taxes which shall be distributed to and a revenue source for the District without
any limitation.
5. Consolidation Limitation. The District shall not file a request with any
Court to consolidate with another Title 32 district without the prior resolution approval of the City
Council and compliance with the Special District Act.
6. Eminent Domain Limitation. The District shall not exercise its statutory
power of eminent domain without first obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This
restriction on the Eminent Domain power by the District is being exercised voluntarily 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 of Colorado as allowed
by the Special District Act.
7. Service Plan Amendment Requirement. The District shall be an
independent unit of local government, separate and distinct from the City, and its activities are
subject to review by the City only insofar as they may deviate in a material manner from the
requirements of the Service Plan. Any action of the District which: (1) violates the limitations set
forth in this Section V.A. or (2) violates the limitations set forth in Section VI. below, shall be
deemed to be a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise agreed by the City as
provided for in Section X of this Service Plan or unless otherwise expressly provided herein. All
other departures from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case
basis as to whether such departures are a material modification, unless otherwise expressly
provided herein.
VI. FINANCIAL PLAN
A. General.
The District shall be authorized to provide for financing of the Public Improvements from
its revenues pursuant to the Capital Pledge Agreement. The Capital Pledge Agreement for the
District requires a Debt Service Mill Levy of no less than Seven and One Half (7.5) Mills and no
greater than Ten (10) Mills, subject to the Gallagher Adjustment.
The total Debt that the District shall be permitted to issue shall not exceed the Maximum
Debt Authorization. Subject to the limitations contained herein, the District Debt evidenced by the
Capital Pledge Agreement shall be payable in such year or years and in such amounts as required
by the Capital Pledge Agreement. The Debt evidenced by the Capital Pledge Agreement may be
payable from any and all legally available revenues of the District, including general ad valorem
taxes to be imposed upon all taxable property within the District. The District may also rely upon
various other revenue sources authorized by law and as provided in the Capital Pledge Agreement.
Page 165 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
6
The Maximum Debt Authorization, Debt Service Mill Levy, Operations and Maintenance
Mill Levy, and all other financial projections and estimates contained in this Service Plan are
supported by the Financial Plan (Exhibit E) prepared by an External Financial Advisor, D.A.
Davidson and Co. The Financial Plan is based on economic, political and industry conditions as
they exist presently and reasonable projections and estimates of future conditions. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, D.A. Davidson and Co. shall not be considered a financial advisor or municipal
advisor with regard to any Debt issuance by the District.
B. Maximum Debt Service Mill Levy.
The Maximum Debt Service Mill Levy shall be the maximum mill levy the District is
permitted to impose upon the taxable property within the District for payment of Debt and shall
be Ten (10) Mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustment, which shall not be exceeded under any
circumstances.
C. Security for Debt.
The District does not have the authority and 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 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 or
performance of any other obligation.
F. TABOR Compliance.
The District shall comply with the provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (“TABOR”),
Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution in conducting the election required in Section IV. H.
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 the District will remain under the control of the District’s Board.
G. District’s Operating Costs.
The estimated cost of legal services and administrative services, together with the estimated
costs of the District’s organization and initial operations, are anticipated to be Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000), which will be eligible for reimbursement as provided for in the
Capital Pledge Agreement.
In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the District will require
operating funds for administrative and regulatory compliance costs. It is anticipated that these
costs will be funded through the imposition of an developer advances and/or the Operations and
Maintenance Mill Levy, and shall be eligible for reimbursement by the City as provided for in the
Capital Pledge Agreement. The first year’s operating budget is estimated to be Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000).
Page 166 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
7
H. Election.
The District will call an election on the questions of organizing the District, electing the
initial Board, and setting in place as required by TABOR the tax, debt and other financial
authorizations and obligations contemplated in the Capital Pledge Agreement. The election will
be conducted as required by law.
VII. ANNUAL REPORT
A. General.
The District shall be responsible for submitting an annual report with the City’s clerk not
later than September 1st of each year for the year ending the preceding December 31 following
the year of the District Organization Date. The City may, in its sole discretion, waive this
requirement in whole or in part. The District shall also submit all reports required pursuant to the
Capital Pledge Agreement.
B. Reporting of Significant Events.
Unless waived by the City, the annual report shall include the following:
1. A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing their
service plan for the report year;
2. 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 operations (i.e., revenues and expenditures) for the report year;
and
3. Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed
reasonably necessary by the City’s manager and communicated in a timely manner to the District.
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City’s clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default may be given to the Board of such District, 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’s clerk may constitute a material modification, at the
discretion of the City.
VIII. DISSOLUTION
Upon payment of all outstanding obligations under the Capital Pledge Agreement, and
upon prior appropriation for all related dissolution costs and any other outstanding obligations of
the District, the District agree to file a petition in the Larimer County District Court for dissolution,
pursuant to the applicable State statutes. In no event shall dissolution occur until the District has
provided for the payment or discharge of all of their outstanding indebtedness and other financial
obligations as required pursuant to State statutes, including operation and maintenance activities.
Page 167 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
8
IX. PROPOSED AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND
EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS
All intergovernmental agreements must be for purposes, facilities, services or agreements
lawfully authorized to be provided by the District, pursuant to the State Constitution, Article XIV,
Section 18(2)(a) and Sections 29-1-201, et seq., C.R.S. To the extent practicable, the District may
enter into additional intergovernmental and private agreements to better ensure long-term
provision of the Public Improvements identified herein or for other lawful purposes of the District.
Agreements may also be executed with property owner associations and other service providers.
The District shall approve the Capital Pledge Agreement at the District’s first meeting after
the District Organization Date; provided that the Capital Pledge Agreement may be revised by the
City and the District to include such additional details and requirements therein as are deemed
necessary by the parties. Failure by the District to execute the Capital Pledge Agreement as
required herein shall constitute a material modification hereunder. The Capital Pledge Agreement
may be amended from time to time by the City and the District, provided that any such amendment
shall be in compliance with the provisions of this Service Plan.
No other agreements are required, or known at the time of formation of the District to likely
be required, to fulfill the purposes of the District. Execution of intergovernmental agreements or
agreements for extraterritorial services by the District that are not described in this Service Plan
and which are likely to cause a substantial increase in the District’s budgets shall require the prior
approval of the City Council, which approval shall not constitute a material modification hereof.
X. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with Section
32-1-207, C.R.S. No modification shall be required for an action of the District which does not
materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan.
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification include without
limitation:
1. Actions or failures to act that create material financial risk or burden for the
City;
2. Performance of a service or function or acquisition of a major facility that
is not closely related to a service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3. Failure to perform a service or function or acquire a facility required by the
Service Plan;
4. Failure by the District to execute and deliver the Capital Pledge
Agreement; and
5. Failure to comply with the limitations set forth in Section V.A. or Section
VI of this Service Plan.
Page 168 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
9
Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation
changes in quantities of facilities or equipment, immaterial cost differences, and actions expressly
authorized in the Service Plan.
XI. SANCTIONS
Should the District undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council
resolution approval as required in this Service Plan or that constitutes a material
modification to this Service Plan as provided herein or under the Special District Act, the
City may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate:
1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Act;
2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or
other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District’s
development, construction or operation of improvements, or the provisions of services as
contemplated under this Service Plan;
3. Exercise any legal remedy as provided in the Capital Pledge
Agreement or in any other intergovernmental agreement with the City under which the
District is in default; or
4. Exercise any other legal remedy at law or in equity, including seeking
specific performance, mandamus or injunctive relief against the District, to ensure the
District’s compliance with this Service Plan and applicable law.
XII. CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan for the District, as required by Section 32-1-203(2),
establishes that:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the
area to be serviced by the District;
2. The existing service in the 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
area within their proposed boundaries; and
4. The area to be included in the District does have, and will have, the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Page 169 of 309
1587.0003; 875074
10
XIII. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The District agrees to incorporate the City Council’s resolution of approval, including any
conditions on any such approval, into the Service Plan presented to the District Court for and in
Larimer County, Colorado.
Page 170 of 309
EXHIBIT A
I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District
Legal Description
Page 171 of 309
Page 1 of 5
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 | 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 | 970.395.9880 | WEB: www.northernengineering.com
DESCRIPTION: I-25/PROSPECT INTERCHANGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Tracts of land located in Sections 15,16, 21, and 22, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North 00° 11’
16” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 16; thence along the West line of the
Southeast Quarter, North 00° 11’ 16” East, 360.01 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1,
Boxelder Estates Second Filing to POINT OF BEGINNING 1; thence along West line of the
Southeast Quarter, North 00° 11' 16" East, 736.49 feet to the Northeast corner of a parcel of land
as described at Reception No. 95076406, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence, North 88°
20' 33" West, 315.26 feet to the Southeast corner of a parcel of land as described at Reception No.
20140007506, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along the East line of said parcel,
North 25° 21' 13" West, 264.37 feet to the Southeast corner of a parcel of land described at
Reception No. 93054775, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said parcel the
following 3 courses and distance: North 00° 12' 15" East, 1649.54 feet; thence, South 89° 47'
45" East, 200.00 feet; thence, North 00° 12' 15" East, 216.34 feet to a point on the South line of
a parcel of land described at Reception No. 133800200, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder;
thence along said South line, South 83° 28' 53" East, 232.09 feet to the Southeast corner of said
parcel, said point being on the East line of Sunrise Estates extended; thence along said East line,
North 00° 08' 06" East, 1117.52 feet to a point on the South line of Crossroads East Business
Center; thence along said South line the following 5 courses and distance: South 25° 46' 37" East,
448.11 feet; thence, South 48° 55' 44" East, 1510.22 feet; thence, South 24° 21' 14" East,
195.19 feet; thence, South 58° 04' 14" East, 132.96 feet to the Southeast corner of said
Crossroads East Business Center; thence along the East line of said Crossroads East Business
Center, North 00° 11' 16" East, 33.04 feet to a point on the South line of Smithfield Subdivision;
thence along said South line the following 4 courses and distance: South 65° 21' 37" East, 353.30
feet; thence, South 79° 21' 37" East, 300.00 feet; thence, North 57° 08' 23" East, 197.00 feet;
thence, North 69° 08' 23" East, 141.86 feet to a point on the West line of Interstate Highway 25;
thence along said West line the following 2 courses and distances: South 00° 11' 10" West,
601.01 feet; thence, South 01° 58' 22" West, 408.31 feet to the North line of Interstate Land PUD
First Filing; thence along said Interstate Land PUD First Filing the following 2 courses and
distances: North 76° 26' 25" West, 300.61 feet; thence, South 11° 47' 57" West, 629.05 feet to
the West line of Interstate Highway 25 Frontage Road; thence along said Interstate Highway 25
Frontage Road the following 6 courses and distances: South 85° 36' 15" West, 289.72 feet;
thence, South 82° 01' 25" West, 157.09 feet; thence along a curve concave to the southeast
having a central angle of 62° 57' 26" with a radius of 449.26 feet, an arc length of 493.65 feet
Page 172 of 309
Page 2 of 5
and the chord of which bears South 43° 37' 30" West, 469.19 feet; thence, South 05° 13' 35"
West, 157.09 feet; thence South 01° 38' 45" West, 455.56 feet to Point A; thence, South 46° 38'
49" West, 102.54 feet to the North right-of-way line of East Prospect Road; thence along said
North line, North 88° 21' 30" West, 222.35 feet to the East line of Lot 3, Block 1, Boxelder Estates
Second Filing; thence along the East, North and West lines of said Lot 3 the following 3 courses
and distances: North 01° 38' 10" East, 242.53 feet; thence, North 88° 21' 50" West, 290.40 feet;
thence, South 01° 38' 10" West, 242.50 feet to the North right-of-way line of East Prospect Road;
thence along said North line, North 88° 21' 30" West, 516.42 feet to the East line of Lot 1, Block
1, Boxelder Estates Second Filing; thence along said East line, North 00° 11' 10" East, 302.55 feet
to the North line of said Lot 1; thence along said North line, North 88° 21' 50" West, 120.13 feet
to POINT OF BEGINNING 1, containing 6,777,385 square feet or 155.59 acres, more or less.
AND
Commencing at aforementioned Point A; thence South 88° 21’ 08” East, 79.99 feet to a point on
the East right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 25 Frontage Road, said point being the POINT OF
BEGINNING 2; thence along the East and North lines of said right-of-way the following 8 courses
and distances: North 01° 38' 45" East, 455.57 feet; thence, North 05° 03' 18" East, 142.46 feet,
thence along a curve concave to the northwest having a central angle of 62° 57' 26" with a radius
of 369.26 feet, an arc length of 405.75 feet and the chord of which bears North 43° 37' 30" East,
385.64 feet; thence, North 82° 11' 42" East, 142.46 feet; thence, North 85° 36' 05" East, 289.72
feet; thence, North 82° 01' 25" East, 157.09 feet; thence along a curve concave to the southeast
having a central angle of 28° 04' 38" with a radius of 449.26 feet, an arc length of 220.16 feet
and the chord of which bears North 61° 03' 55" East, 217.96 feet; thence, South 89° 48' 10" East,
79.52 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 25; thence along said
Westerly line the following 4 courses and distance: South 00° 11' 10" West, 379.24 feet; thence,
South 10° 33' 17" West, 201.18 feet; thence, South 26° 47' 14" West, 560.45 feet; thence, South
61° 09' 08" West, 99.88 feet to the North right-of-way line of East Prospect Road; thence along
said North line the following 3 courses and distances: North 88° 18' 07" West, 203.23 feet;
hence, South 85° 48' 49" West, 411.08 feet; thence, North 88° 21' 25" West, 59.24 feet; thence,
North 43° 21' 11" West, 141.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING 2, containing 1,013,409
square feet or 23.26 acres, more or less.
Together with a Tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15 as bearing South 89° 38’
43” East, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 45.00 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of
the Southeast Frontage Road of Interstate Highway 25, said point being POINT OF BEGINNING 1;
thence continuing along the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, South 89° 38' 43"
East, 2598.20 feet to the Center Corner of said Section15; thence along the North-South Section
line of Section 15, South 00° 05' 39" West, 1331.29 feet to the Center-South Sixteenth Corner of
Section 15, also being a point on the North line of that Parcel of land as described at Reception No.
99062749, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along the North and West lines of said
Parcel the following 2 courses and distances: North 89° 49' 50" West, 637.70 feet; thence, South
Page 173 of 309
Page 3 of 5
00° 00' 36" West, 804.25 feet to a point on the North line of that parcel of land described at Book
1531 Page 759, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said North line the following 5
courses and distances: thence, North 54° 58' 16" West, 474.72 feet; thence, North 76° 19' 16"
West, 163.85 feet; thence, North 84° 59' 16" West, 548.82 feet; thence, North 67° 52' 16" West,
88.12 feet; thence, North 54° 48' 16" West, 949.54 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of the
Southeast Frontage Road of Interstate Highway 25; thence along said Easterly right-of-way line the
following 2 courses and distances: North 00° 11' 39" East, 1151.18 feet; thence, North 09° 26'
43" West, 59.72 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1, containing 4,203,912 square feet or 96.51
acres, more or less.
AND
Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the
Southwest Quarter, South 89° 38’ 43” East, 2,643.20 feet; thence, South 00° 05’ 39” West,
1331.29 feet; thence, North 89° 49’ 50” West, 637.70 feet; thence, South 00° 00’ 36” West,
804.25 feet; thence, South 00° 00’ 36” West, 61.05 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2; thence,
South 00° 00' 36" West, 438.93 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of East Prospect
Road; thence, South 00° 00' 36" West, 30.00 feet to a point on the South line of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 15; thence along said South line, North 89° 59' 24" West, 1181.93 feet;
thence, North 00° 00' 36" East, 30.25 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of East
Prospect Road, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of the Southeast Frontage
Road of Interstate Highway 25; thence along said Easterly right-of-way line the following 7 courses
and distances: North 65° 50' 44" West, 112.37 feet; thence, South 89° 54' 52" West, 299.87
feet; thence, North 57° 21' 33" West, 106.29 feet; thence, North 26° 23' 32" West, 458.81 feet;
thence, North 11° 18' 02" West, 200.00 feet; thence, North 03° 14' 53" West, 294.32 feet;
thence, North 00° 10' 38" East, 360.36 feet to a point on the South line of that parcel of land
described at Book 1531 Page 759, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said South
line the following 5 courses and distances: South 54° 48' 16" East, 895.99 feet; thence, South 67°
52' 16" East, 101.38 feet; thence, South 84° 59' 16" East, 552.56 feet; thence South 76° 19' 16"
East, 150.63 feet; thence, South 54° 58' 16" East, 500.33 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2,
containing 1,580,513 square feet or 36.28 acres, more or less.
Together with a tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of said Northwest Quarter as bearing South 89°59’00” East and with all
bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Beginning at a point on the North line of the said Northwest Quarter which bears South 89°59’00”
East, 1199.65 feet from the Northwest corner of said Section 22; thence South 89°59’00” East
118.59 feet along said North line; thence South, 77.95 feet; thence South 89°59’00” East, 27.06
feet; thence South 15°16’00” West, 1035.05 feet along the centerline of the Sand Dike Ditch;
thence West, 971.76 feet to a point on the Easterly Right-of-Way line of Interstate Highway No.
25; thence along said Easterly Right-of-Way North 06°13’00” East, 211.40 feet, and again North
18°21’30” East, 458.46 feet; thence South 89°59’00” East, 810.90 feet; thence North 15°36’00”
East, 447.99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 441,544 square feet or 10.137 acres,
more or less, excepting therefrom any portion conveyed to the Colorado State Department of
Highways by instruments recorded May 23, 1947 in Book 833 at Page 522 and May 23, 1988 at
Page 174 of 309
Page 4 of 5
Reception No. 88023148, and also except that portion conveyed in the Warranty Deed recorded
January 3, 2005 at Reception No. 20050000154, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
AND
Considering the North line of said Northwest Quarter as bearing South 89°59’00” East and with all
bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Beginning at a point which bears North 89°59’00” West, 1446.03 feet from the North Quarter
corner of said Section 22; thence North 89°59’00” West, 371.65 feet; thence South 00°01’00”
West, 30.00 feet to a point on the Southeasterly Right-of-Way line of Interstate No 25; thence
South 65°47’30” West, 109.70 feet along said Right-of-Way line; thence North 89°59’00” West,
300.00 feet along said Right-of-Way line; thence South 52°25’00” West, 70.10 feet along said
Right-of-Way line; thence South 18°21’30” West, 330.54 feet along said Right-of-Way line; thence
South 89°59’00” East, 810.90 feet; thence North 15°36’00” East, 447.99 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 314,194 square feet or 7.213 acres, more or less.
Together with a Tract of land located in Section 21, and Section 22, Township 7 North, Range 68
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado,
being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 21 as bearing South 89° 01’
48” East, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said Section 21; thence, North 88° 38’ 29” West,
1241.97 feet; thence, South 01° 21’ 31” West, 30.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said
point being the Northeast corner of an Easement granted to the State Department of Highways as
recorded at Reception No. 88026808 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence, South 44°
05’ 25” West along the Southeasterly line of said Easement, Recorded at 88026808, 37.44 feet to
the Southerly line of a parcel of land described at Reception No. 20060041498 of the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder; thence, South 88° 38’ 29” East along said Southerly line and the
Easterly prolongation thereof, 345.55 feet to the Westerly line of a parcel of land described within
Exhibit “ A” at Book 1992, Page 280 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence, South 61°
58’ 19” East along said Westerly line, 35.56 feet to the Northerly line of said parcel described
within Book 1992, Page 280; thence, North 89° 50’ 02” East along said Northerly line, 13.83 feet
to the Westerly line of a parcel of land described at Book 1234, Page 241 of the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder; thence, South 64° 24’ 59” East along said Westerly line, 4.65 feet to the
Southerly line of a parcel of land described within said Book 1234, Page 241, said Southerly line
being parallel with and 75.00 feet Southerly of, as measured at a right angle to the North line of
the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21; thence, South 88° 38’ 29” East along said Southerly line,
300.00 feet to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Interstate Highway No. I-25; thence, along the
Westerly Right-of-Way lines of Interstate Highway No. I-25 the following 9 courses and distances:
South 50° 23’ 59” East, 72.51 feet; thence, South 18° 02’ 31” East, 798.28 feet; thence, South
06° 22’ 28” East, 704.20 feet; thence, South 00° 05’ 56” East, 53.90 feet; thence along a curve
concave to the east having a central angle of 06° 33’ 06” with a radius of 11583.00 feet, an arc
length of 1324.50 feet and the chord of which bears South 03° 24’ 23” East, 1323.78 feet;
thence, South 05° 48’ 32” West, 417.50 feet; thence along a curve concave to the east having a
central angle of 03° 00’ 00” with a radius of 11680.00 feet, an arc length of 611.57 feet and the
chord of which bears South 10° 09’ 58” East, 611.50 feet; thence, South 25° 42’ 58” East,
Page 175 of 309
Page 5 of 5
425.50 feet; thence, South 12° 55’ 58” East, 968.64 feet to the South line of the Southwest
Quarter of said Section 22; thence, South 89° 43’ 29” West along the South line of the Southwest
Quarter of said Section 22, 344.34 feet to the Southeast corner of said Section 21; thence, North
89° 01’ 48” West along the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 22, 713.93 feet;
thence parallel with and 20 feet Westerly of the centerline of an existing access road the following
15 courses and distances: North 30° 07’ 30” West, 653.11 feet; thence along a curve concave to
the northeast having a central angle of 27° 35’ 32” with a radius of 424.29 feet, an arc length of
204.33 feet and the chord of which bears North 16° 19’ 44” West, 202.36 feet; thence, North 02°
31’ 58” West, 432.64 feet; thence, North 00° 56’ 51” West, 512.69 feet; thence, North 22° 22’
44” West, 121.69 feet; thence, North 03° 04’ 28” West, 129.58 feet; thence along a curve
concave to the southwest having a central angle of 42° 50’ 08” with a radius of 157.27 feet, an arc
length of 117.58 feet and the chord of which bears North 24° 29’ 32” West, 114.86 feet; thence,
North 45° 54’ 36” West, 71.28 feet; thence along a curve concave to the east having a central
angle of 30° 41’ 12” with a radius of 330.34 feet, an arc length of 176.92 feet and the chord of
which bears North 30° 34’ 00” West, 174.82 feet; thence, North 15° 13’ 24” West, 100.27 feet;
thence along a curve concave to the southwest having a central angle of 20° 34’ 23” with a radius
of 289.75 feet, an arc length of 104.04 feet and the chord of which bears North 25° 30’ 36”
West, 103.48 feet; thence, North 35° 47’ 47 West, 144.89 feet; thence along a curve concave to
the northeast having a central angle of 37° 10’ 11” with a radius of 364.63 feet, an arc length of
236.55 feet and the chord of which bears North 17° 12’ 42” West, 232.42 feet; thence, North 01°
22’ 24” East, 921.36 feet; thence along a curve concave to the southeast having a central angle of
17° 07’ 56” with a radius of 707.08 feet, an arc length of 211.43 feet and the chord of which
bears North 09° 56’ 22” East, 210.64 feet; thence, North 89° 40’ 07” East, 6.45 feet to the
Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of said Easement, Recorded at Reception No.
88026808; thence, North 17° 24’ 16” East along said Southerly prolongation and also along the
Westerly line of said Easement, Recorded at Reception No. 88026808, 673.89 feet; thence along
the Westerly and Northerly lines of that Easement granted to the State Department of Highways at
Reception No. 88026808 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder the following 5 courses and
distances: thence along a curve concave to the east having a central angle of 40° 05’ 20” with a
radius of 532.96 feet, an arc length of 372.90 feet and the chord of which bears North 02° 38’
24” West, 365.34 feet; thence, North 22° 41’ 04” West, 110.41 feet; thence along a curve
concave to the northeast having a central angle of 15° 37’ 22” with a radius of 612.96 feet, an arc
length of 167.14 feet and the chord of which bears North 14° 52’ 23” West, 166.62 feet; thence,
North 45° 28’ 31” West, 146.18 feet to a line being 30.00 feet Southerly, as measured at a right
angle, of the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21; thence, South 88° 38’ 29” East
along a line parallel with and 30.00 feet Southerly of, as measured at a right angle to the North line
of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21, 280.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing
6,204,458 square feet or 142.435 acres more or less.
The above described Tracts of land contain 20,535,415 square feet or 471.428 acres more or less
and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
January 31, 2018
CNS
C:\Users\cody\Desktop\Metro District Exhibits - Hill\102-002_Overall Boundary - Overall.docx
Page 176 of 309
40780828.v1
EXHIBIT B
I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District
Boundary Map
Page 177 of 309
PROSPECT ROAD INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROADSUMMIT
V
IEW
DR
.GREENFIELD CT.BOXELDER DR.
CARRI
A
G
E
P
K
W
Y
KITCHELL WAY
PARADIGM
17.350 ac.
LAAM
132.793 ac.
FCIC/GAPA
178.852 ac.
CSURF
142.435 ac.
DISTRICT TOTAL = 471.43 ac.
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet010001000
1000
I-25/PROSPECT INTERCHANGE
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
102-002
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
C. Snowdon
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP
B
1" = 1000'Page 178 of 309
40780828.v1
EXHIBIT C
I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District
Vicinity Map
Page 179 of 309
PROPOSED
I-25/PROSPECT
INTERCHANGE
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
PROPOSED
I-25/PROSPECT
INTERCHANGE
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
PROSPECT ROAD INTERSTATE 25PROSPECT ROADSUMMIT
V
IEW
DR
.GREENFIELD CT.CARRI
A
G
E
P
K
W
Y
KITCHELL WAY
INTERSTATE 25MULBERRY STREET HIGHWAY 14
B
N
S
F
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
DRAKE ROAD
ZIEGLER ROAD( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet020002000
2000
I-25/PROSPECT INTERCHANGE
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
FORT COLLINS
COLORADO
E N G I N E E R N GI
EHTRON RN
DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY
DATE PROJECT
102-002
EXHIBITSCALEDRAWN BY
C. Snowdon
DATE
January 31, 2018
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521
GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631
970.221.4158
northernengineering.com
VICINITY MAP
C
1" = 2000'Page 180 of 309
40780828.v1
EXHIBIT D
I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District
Capital Pledge Agreement
Page 181 of 309
EXHIBIT E
I-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District
Financial Plan
Page 182 of 309
12050I-25 / PROSPECT INTERCHAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)Development Projection at 7.500 (target) Residential Mills +7.500 (target) Commercial Mills for Debt Service (SERVICE PLAN) -- 02/28/20182049TotalDistrictDistrictDistrictTotalDistrictDistrictDistrictAssessed D/S Mill Levy D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Assessed D/S Mill Levy D/S Mill Levy S.O. TaxesTotalValue[7.500 Target]Collections CollectedValue[7.500 Target]Collections Collected Sys. Dev. FeesYEAR(Residential) [10.000 Cap] @ 98%@ 6%(Commercial) [10.000 Cap] @ 98%@ 6%Collections2017$0201802019$07.50000$07.500000202007.5000007.50000 218,48020212,530,5407.500 18,5991,116 1,126,5607.5008,280497 374,42020229,067,0827.500 66,6433,999 12,644,0017.500 92,9335,576 435,858202314,815,6357.500 108,8956,534 23,616,3907.500 173,580 10,415 298,276202418,327,6777.500 134,7088,083 47,480,8767.500 348,984 20,939 437,948202518,675,6777.500 137,2668,236 69,499,2017.500 510,819 30,649 221,406202620,400,3427.500 149,9438,997 99,135,9927.500 728,650 43,719 190,206202720,400,3427.500 149,9438,997 120,892,1737.500 888,557 53,313 126,808202821,624,3637.500 158,9399,536 140,866,6057.500 1,035,370 62,122 80,008202921,624,3637.500 158,9399,536 152,529,3177.500 1,121,090 67,265 84,808203022,921,8247.500 168,475 10,109 170,220,9827.500 1,251,124 75,067 80,308203122,921,8247.500 168,475 10,109 179,923,8307.500 1,322,440 79,346 92,308203224,297,1347.500 178,584 10,715 200,281,9287.500 1,472,072 88,324 56,460203324,297,1347.500 178,584 10,715 212,035,8547.500 1,558,464 93,508 14,400203425,754,9627.500 189,299 11,358 228,911,9977.500 1,682,503 100,950 14,400203525,754,9627.500 189,299 11,358 232,424,7137.500 1,708,322 102,499 14,400203627,300,2607.500 200,657 12,039 249,937,5067.500 1,837,041 110,222 12,000203727,300,2607.500 200,657 12,039 253,548,6367.500 1,863,582 111,815 12,000203828,938,2757.500 212,696 12,762 271,854,9407.500 1,998,134 119,8884,800203928,938,2757.500 212,696 12,762 274,893,0057.500 2,020,464 121,2280__________ ____________________ __________ __________2,983,298 178,99821,622,410 1,297,345 2,769,2922/28/2018 A I-25PIMD Fin Plan 18 R+C NR LF Fin Plan SP 20yrsPrepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.Draft: For discussion purposes only.Page 183 of 309
120502049YEAR20172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039Annual SalesAnnual Taxable Add-on PIFTotalSales*@ 0.75%AvailableNet Availableinfl. @ 1.00%Revenuefor Debt Svc$0000 0$000 005,260,75639,456257,935 257,93514,706,661 110,300513,212 513,21236,707,840 275,309880,318 880,31854,316,805 407,376 1,005,076 1,005,07676,167,980 571,260 1,521,923 1,521,92391,350,847 685,131 1,593,508 1,593,508101,393,347 760,450 1,881,964 1,881,964108,835,215 816,264 2,043,882 2,043,882112,705,765 845,293 2,191,268 2,191,268116,642,842 874,821 2,316,460 2,316,460120,647,391 904,855 2,489,939 2,489,939124,720,366 935,403 2,608,081 2,608,081128,862,736 966,471 2,772,626 2,772,626130,151,363 976,135 2,831,806 2,831,806131,452,877 985,897 2,984,407 2,984,407132,767,406 995,756 3,021,633 3,021,633134,095,080 1,005,713 3,177,673 3,177,673135,436,031 1,015,770 3,215,864 3,215,864136,790,391 1,025,928 3,374,208 3,374,208138,158,295 1,036,187 3,403,337 3,403,337__________ __________ __________ _________3,645,204,689 15,233,775 44,085,118 44,085,118[*] Including Lodg.2/28/2018 A I-25PIMD Fin Plan 18 R+C NR LF Fin Plan SP 20yrsPrepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.Draft: For discussion purposes only.I-25 / PROSPECT INTERCHAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)Development Projection at 7.500 (target) Residential Mills +7.500 (target) Commercial Mills for Debt Service (SERVICE PLAN) -- 02/28/2018Page 184 of 309
I-25 / PROSPECT INTERCHAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential) Development SummaryDevelopment Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 2/22/18) Residential DevelopmentProduct TypeApts (NW)TH (NW) Condo (NW)SFD - Standard (NW)SFD - Premier (NW)Assissted Living (NE)Base $ ('18)$215,000$375,000$385,000$475,000$575,000$200,000Res'l Totals2017- - - - - - - 2018- - - - - - - 2019- - - - - - - 2020138 29 29 47 23 - 266 2021138 29 29 47 23 - 266 2022- 29 28 46 21 - 124 2023- - - - - - - 2024- - - - - 60 60 2025- - - - - - - 2026- - - - - - - 2027- - - - - - - 2028- - - - - - - 2029- - - - - - - 2030- - - - - - - 2031- - - - - - - 2032- - - - - - - 2033- - - - - - - 2034- - - - - - - 2035- - - - - - - 2036- - - - - - - 2037- - - - - - - 2038- - - - - - - 2039- - - - - - - 2040- - - - - - - 276 87 86 140 67 60 716 MV @ Full Buildout$59,340,000 $32,625,000 $33,110,000 $66,500,000 $38,525,000 $12,000,000$242,100,000(base prices;un-infl.)notes: Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum Res'l Fac. Fees: $325 (SFD), $300 (MF,TH, Condo, Asst'd Living)2/22/2018 A I-25PIMD Fin Plan 18 R Dev SummPrepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.4Page 185 of 309
I-25 / PROSPECT INTERCHAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Commercial)Development SummaryDevelopment Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 2/22/18) Commercial DevelopmentProduct TypeRetail (NW) Office (NW) Restaurant (NW)Emp. Office/Research (NW)Emp. Medical/Wellness (NW)Gas / Convenience (SW)Pad Retail (SW) Office (SW) Industrial (SW)Base $ ('18)$250/sf$200/sf$300/sf$200/sf$250/sf$165/sf$250/sf$200/sf$150/sfSales $ ('18)$250/sf$0/sf$250/sf$0/sf$0/sf$250/sf$250/sf$0/sf$0/sfTaxable %70%70%70%70%2017---------2018---------2019---------202028,151-7,67832,23532,235----202128,151-7,67832,23532,2356,00012,00020,000-202228,151-7,67832,23532,235-20,00030,000-202328,151-7,67832,23532,235-20,00030,000-202428,14912,7967,67532,23232,2324,00030,00060,000-2025------20,00070,000-2026------10,00070,000-2027------10,00080,000-2028-------40,000-2029-------40,00020,0002030-------10,00050,0002031-------10,000100,0002032--------50,0002033--------60,0002034--------60,0002035--------60,0002036--------50,0002037--------50,0002038--------20,0002039---------2040---------140,75312,79638,387161,172161,17210,000122,000460,000520,000MV @ Full Buildout$35,188,250 $2,559,200 $11,516,100 $32,234,400 $40,293,000 $1,650,000 $30,500,000 $92,000,000 $78,000,000(base prices;un-infl.)Sales @ Full Buildout$24,631,775$0 $6,717,725$0$0 $1,750,000 $21,350,000$0$0(base prices;un-infl.)notes: Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum Comm'l Fac Fees: $3.12/SF (Retial/Rest.), $18.45/SF (Gas), $0.39/SF (Office/Med.), $0.24/SF (Ind'l), $300/Rm (Hotel)2/22/2018 A I-25PIMD Fin Plan 18 C Dev SummPrepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.6Page 186 of 309
Product TypeBase $ ('18)Sales $ ('18)Taxable %201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040MV @ Full Buildout(base prices;un-infl.)Sales @ Full Buildout(base prices;un-infl.)I-25 / PROSPECT INTERCHAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Commercial)Development SummaryDevelopment Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 2/22/18)Retail (NE)Gas / Convenience (NE)Industrial / Employment (NE)Retial (SE) Hotel (NW) Hotel (SW) Hotel (NE) Hotel (SE)$250/sf$165/sf$150/sf$250/sf $125,000/Rm $125,000/Rm $125,000/Rm $125,000/Rm$250/sf$250/sf$0/sf$250/sf$90 ADR$90 ADR$90 ADR$90 ADR70%70%70%100%100%100%100%Comm'l Totals* Hotel Rooms---------- ---------- ---------- ----120---100,299120--------138,299- 21,5705,35083,115--150--260,33415021,570-83,115---120-254,98412021,570-83,115-120---311,76912021,570-83,11514,250--120100208,93522021,570-83,11514,250----198,935- --83,11514,250----187,365- --83,11514,250----137,365- --83,11514,250----157,365- --83,11514,250----157,365- --83,11514,250----207,365- ---14,250----64,250- --------60,000- --------60,000- --------60,000- --------50,000- --------50,000- --------20,000- ---------- ---------- 107,8505,350831,150114,0002401502401002,684,630 730$26,962,500$882,750 $124,672,500$28,500,000 $30,000,000 $18,750,000 $30,000,000 $12,500,000$596,208,700$18,873,750$936,250$0 $19,950,000 $5,518,800$3,449,250 $5,518,800 $2,299,500$110,995,850[*] Not Including Hotels; presented in Rooms. Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum Comm'l Fac Fees: $3.12/SF (Retial/Rest.), $18.45/SF (Gas), $0.39/SF (Office/Med.), $0.24/SF (Ind'l), $300/Rm (Hotel)2/22/2018 A I-25PIMD Fin Plan 18 C Dev SummPrepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.7Page 187 of 309
Page 188 of 309
Page 189 of 309
Page 190 of 309
Page 191 of 309
Page 192 of 309
EXHIBIT A
Page 193 of 309
Page 194 of 309
Page 195 of 309
Page 196 of 309
Page 197 of 309
Page 198 of 309
Page 199 of 309
Page 200 of 309
Page 201 of 309
Page 202 of 309
Page 203 of 309
Page 204 of 309
Page 205 of 309
Page 206 of 309
Page 207 of 309
Page 208 of 309
Page 209 of 309
Page 210 of 309
Page 211 of 309
"Election" means the election to be held by the Interchange District on May 8, 2018.
"Eligible Operational Costs"means the actual and reasonable operating and administrative
expenses incurred by the Interchange District each year in an amount that does not exceed that
amount budgeted by the Interchange District for operating and administrative expenses in such
year, as such budget may be amended in accordance with the Capital Pledge Agreement. Revenues
generated from the Project Mill Levy may be applied by the District to the payment of Eligible
Operational Costs and the Interchange District shall receive a credit against the Owners' Share in
each year in an amount equal to the Eligible Operational Costs for such year, as further set forth
in the Capital Pledge Agreement.
"FCIC' means Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Comer, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
Company.
"FCIC ParceI'' means the property owned by FCIC and generally described in the MOU.
"Formation Costs" means the reasonable and necessary costs, fees and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, incurred by the Owners or the Interchange District in
connection with the formation of the Interchange District, including without limitation, drafting
and negotiating the service plan for the Interchange District, the preparation of the financing plan
attached to the service plan, and the costs of the Election. Formation Costs shall also include the
share of the costs of drafting and negotiating the Binding Agreement and the Capital Pledge
Agreement that are reasonably related and allocable to the formation of the Interchange District.
Formation Costs shall not include the costs incurred in connection with the formation of the
Development Districts. Revenues generated from the Project Mill Levy may be applied by the
Interchange District to the payment or reimbursement of Formation Costs in an amount not
exceeding $200,000 as further set forth in the Capital Pledge Agreement. The Interchange
District shall not receive a credit against the Owners' Share in an amount equal to the Formation
Costs.
"GAPA" means Gateway at Prospect Apartments, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company.
"GAPAParceI'' means the property owned by GAPA and generally described in the MOU.
"Interchange Districf ' means the 1-25/Prospect Interchange Metropolitan District formed
pursuant to the District Act and having boundaries which include all of the Owners' Properties.
"Interchange" means the highway interchange currently located at Interstate Highway 1-
25 and Prospect Road in the City.
"Interchange District Financing Costs" means the reasonable costs of issuance incurred
in connection with the execution and delivery of the Certificates of Participation that are allocable
to the financing of the Owners' Share with a portion of the proceeds of the Certificates of
Participation, including, without limitation, the fees and expenses of bond counsel, disclosure
counsel and counsel to the underwriter, trustee fees and expenses, rating agency fees, insurance
premiums, capitalized interest, and similar fees and expenses. If the Certificates of Participation
are executed and delivered prior to the ROW Credit being granted, the percentage of costs of
2
Page 212 of 309
Page 213 of 309
Page 214 of 309
Page 215 of 309
Page 216 of 309
Page 217 of 309
Page 218 of 309
Page 219 of 309
Page 220 of 309
Page 221 of 309
Page 222 of 309
Costs.
(i) The ROW Credit shall be applied as a credit against the principal amount
of the Owners' Share, as provided in Section 2.3 of the Binding Agreement. Upon the
granting of such ROW Credit, the Owners have the right under the Binding Agreement to
determine how the ROW Credit will be applied against the principal amount of the Owners'
Share. Upon receipt of written notice by the Interchange District from the Owners of the
application of the ROW Credit, the Interchange District shall provide the City and the
Owners with the revised Payment Schedule reflecting such ROW Credit.
G) The obligation of the Interchange District to pay the Owners' Share as
provided herein shall constitute a special and limited obligation of the Interchange District,
payable solely from and to the extent of the Pledged Revenues. The Pledged Revenues are
hereby pledged by the Interchange District to the City for the payment of the Owners'
Share. The Interchange District hereby elects to apply all of the provisions of the
Supplemental Act to this Capital Pledge Agreement and the payment obligations
hereunder.
(k) In no event shall the total or annual obligations of the Interchange District
hereunder exceed the maximum amounts permitted under its electoral authority and
applicable law.
Section 2.04. Imposition of Project Mill Levy; Eligible Operational Costs; Formation
(a) In order to fund a portion of the Owners' Share and to pay for Eligible
Operational Costs and Formation Costs, the Interchange District agrees to levy on all of
the taxable property in such Interchange District, in addition to all other taxes, direct annual
taxes for collection in each of the years when this Agreement is in effect, in the amount of
the Project Mill Levy. The Pledged Project Mill Levy Revenues shall be included in the
Pledged Revenues and applied as provided herein.
(b) The Interchange District shall provide the City with an itemization of the
Formation Costs incurred by the Interchange District that are to be paid or reimbursed
from revenues generated from the Project Mill Levy, in an amount not exceeding
$200,000. The City shall have the right to review the Formation Costs to confirm that
such costs, fees and expenses qualify as Formation Costs for purposes of this Agreement.
Upon receipt of the net revenues generated from the Project Mill Levy, and after the
City's confirmation of the Formation Costs, the Interchange District may apply such
revenues to the payment or reimbursement of all or any portion of the Formation Costs
until such Formation Costs are paid or reimbursed in full. The Interchange District
acknowledges and agrees that it shall not receive a credit against the Owners' Share to the
extent that it applies revenues from the Project Mill Levy to the payment of all or any
portion of the Formation Costs.
( c) The Interchange District shall provide the City with a copy of its proposed
budget for the subsequent fiscal year setting forth the amount of administrative and
operating expenses budgeted for the Interchange District for the subsequent fiscal year. If
a budget amendment is required due to circumstances that could not have been reasonably
foreseen at the time the original budget was adopted, the Interchange District shall provide
5
Page 223 of 309
Page 224 of 309
Page 225 of 309
Page 226 of 309
Page 227 of 309
Page 228 of 309
Page 229 of 309
Page 230 of 309
Section 5.05. Notices. Except as otherwise provided herein, all notices or payments
required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be hand delivered or sent
by certified mail, return receipt requested, or air freight, to the following addresses:
1-25/Prospect Interchange
Metropolitan District:
With a copy to:
City of Fort Collins:
With a copy to:
White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron
c/o Robert G. Rogers, Esq.
2154 E. Commons Ave, Suite 2000
Centennial, CO 80122
303-858-1800
rrogers@wbapc.com
Mike Beckstead
Chief Financial Officer
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-221-6795
mbeckstead@fcgov.com
John Duval
Deputy City Attorney
300 LaPorte A venue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-416-2488
jduval@fcgov.com
All notices or documents delivered or required to be delivered under the provisions of this
Agreement shall be deemed received one day after hand delivery or three days after mailing. Any
party by written notice so provided may change the address to which future notices shall be sent,
and may provide the manner in which notices may be given, including without limitation,
electronic mail.
Section 5.06. Findings and Determinations Relative to Service Plan and Electoral
Debt Limitations. The Board of Directors of the Interchange District has made, and by approval
of this Capital Pledge Agreement hereby makes, the following findings and determinations relative
to the limitations on indebtedness set forth in its Service Plan and applicable electoral
authorization:
(a)Pursuant to its Service Plan, Interchange District is permitted to issue
"Debt" (as defined therein) in the maximum principal amount of$ 10 million.The
13
Page 231 of 309
Page 232 of 309
Page 233 of 309
Page 234 of 309
Page 235 of 309
Page 236 of 309
Page 237 of 309
Page 238 of 309
Page 239 of 309
Page 240 of 309
Page 241 of 309
Page 242 of 309
Page 243 of 309
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Nina Bodenhamer, Director, City Give
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Manager, Sales Tax & Revenue
Date: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Grocery Tax Rebate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Established in 1972, the Grocery Tax Rebate is intended to provide financially insecure
residents relief from City sales tax charged on purchased food. The program was expanded to
include residents within the City’s Growth Management Area in 2017.
Per a 2020 Performance & Program Evaluation, participation in Grocery Tax Rebate would
benefit from:
• City-wide Centralization of Administration
• City-wide Coordination of Program Outreach
• Simplified Document and Income Verification
• Increased Alignment with Other City Benefit Programs
CURRENT STATE
In 2021, 1,800 Residents applied and received the Grocery Rebate Tax. 89% of applicants are
repeat participants from the prior year.
• 2022 Annual Benefit: $69 Per Resident
• Eligibility: 50% Area Media Income
In spite of robust community outreach and investments in marketing, the Grocery Tax Rebate
has historically lackluster enrollment.
Outreach and marketing efforts include but are not limited to:
• Spanish-language Translation of Outreach Materials and Application
• Direct mail, Community Promotion and Marketing
o Community-wide Poster Distribution
o Two (2) Ads Per Year, Coloradoan, Op-Ed
• 50+ Community Partners: Distribution of Applications & Promotion
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Council input and the findings of the 2020 Performance & Program Evaluation affirm a
commitment to:
• Increase Participation in Income-qualified Programs
• Reduce Barriers to Enrollment
• Realize the Potential of the City’s Investment in Get FoCo
• Embed Best Practices & Resident Input
Adjusting the income eligibility from 50% AMI to 30% AMI would reduce the overall pool of
applicants. However, would the increased ease in income verification result in a higher
response rate?
Page 244 of 309
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Over the past years, revisions to the Code language which govern the Grocery Tax Rebate
have been made to demonstrate responsiveness to resident input and program design:
• Revision to the Payment Definition to Allow Future Alternatives
• A Shift in Window of Service from Seasonal to Annual
• Adjusted Definition of “Households”
• Removed Federal Income Tax as the Sole Income Verification Source
Yet, the program continues to represent low participation rates. Four (4) options are presented
with the rationale, risks and benefits of each:
• Option #1: Maintain Grocery Tax Rebate Income Eligibility at 50% AMI
o Outstanding Benefit: An estimated resident pool of 18,000
o Potential Risk: Income Tax Returns serve as the Sole Option for Income
Verification: 30% - 50% AMI
• Option #2: Adjust Grocery Tax Rebate Income Eligibility to 30% AMI
o Outstanding Benefit: Applicants Immediately Eligible for other City Benefits:
Recreation, Spin Access, Reduced Cost Internet via Get FoCo
o Potential Risk: A Reduced Participant Pool: 12,000 Eligible Residents
• Option #3: Adjust Grocery Tax Rebate Income Eligibility at 60% AMI
o Outstanding Benefit: Income Verification Piggybacks on State Program
o Potential Risk: Resident Familiarity with Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP)
• Option #4: Adjust Grocery Tax Rebate Income Eligibility to 80% AMI
o Via Household Addresses Linked to Affordable Housing Properties
o Additional Financial, Technological and Operational Exploration Required
# # #
Page 245 of 309
Grocery Tax Rebate
Council Finance Committee, July 2022
Page 246 of 309
2Grocery Tax Rebate
PROGRAM ESTABLISHED IN 1972
•Relief from City sales tax charged on food purchased by low-income City residents
•The City’s Growth Management Area was added in 2017
CURRENT STATE
2022 Annual Benefit: $69 Per Resident
Eligibility: 50% Area Media Income
Average Participation = 1,800 Residents
•89% participants are repeat participants from the prior year
Robust Outreach & Engagement
Page 247 of 309
3Grocery Tax Rebate
CURRENT STATE: OUTREACH & PROMOTION
Leverage all City Outreach Platforms
Spanish-language Translation of Outreach Materials and Application
Direct mail, Community Promotion and Marketing
•Community-wide Poster Distribution
•Two (2) Ads Per Year, Coloradoan, Op-Ed
50+ Community Partners: Applications & Promotion
Page 248 of 309
4Grocery Tax Rebate
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY YEAR
•Flat growth over the past 15 years
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Grocery Tax Rebate : Applications Received
Page 249 of 309
5Grocery Tax Rebate
2020 PROGRAM & PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Recommendations:
•Reduce Application Barriers & Simplify Program Design
•Create Single Application for All City IQ Programs
•Increase Cross-Participation Between City Benefit Programs
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Update to the Payment to Allow Future Alternatives
Expanded Window of Service: From Seasonal to Annual
Adjusted Definition of “Households”
Removed Federal Income Tax as the Sole Income Verification Source
Page 250 of 309
6Grocery Tax Rebate
ONGOING PROGRAM DESIGN: GOALS
Increase Participation
Reduced Barriers to Enrollment
Improve the Resident Experience
Leverage Best-Practices in Program Design for Financially Insecure Residents
Realize the Potential of the City’s Investment in Get FoCo
Page 251 of 309
7Potential Program Updates
OPTION #1: MAINTAIN INCOME ELIGIBILITY 50% AMI
BENEFITS
18,000 Eligible Residents
RISKS
Status Quo Participation Rates: 1,800 Residents
Income Tax Returns is Sole Option for Income Verification: 30% -50% AMI
•Resident & Community Partner Input: Income Taxes a Burdensome, Time-intensive Request
•Security Risks of Storing of 1st source Data
Residents’ Perception of the City’s Intent: A Process Too Difficult to Navigate
Page 252 of 309
8Potential Program Updates
OPTION #2: ADJUST INCOME ELIGIBILITY TO 30% AMI
BENEFITS
Leverage the Ease and Comfort of Applying via Get FoCo
Income Verification is Simple and Accessible
Links Grocery Rebate to Food-Related Programs
•Food Bank, WIC, SNAP, PSD Free & Reduced Lunch
Applicants Immediately Eligible for other City Benefits: Recreation, Spin Access, Reduced Cost
Internet
RISKS
Reduced Participant Pool: 12,000 Eligible Residents
•Average Participation = 1,800 Residents
Page 253 of 309
9Potential Program Updates
OPTION #3: ADJUST INCOME ELIGIBILITY 60% AMI
BENEFITS
Approximately 20,000 Eligible Residents
Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) Income Verification: 30% -50% AMI
•Removes Security Risks of Storing of 1st source Data
Income Verification Piggybacks on State Program
Leverages City’s Investment in Get FoCo & Ease in Application
RISKS
Resident Familiarity with LEAP
LEAP Application Window: November –April of Each Year
•Application Window Does Not Exclude Applicants from 2022 or 2023
Building Awareness of Program Changes for Repeat Participants
Page 254 of 309
10Potential Program Updates
OPTION #4: ADJUST INCOME ELIGIBILITY 80% AMI
Via Household Addresses, Affordable Housing Properties
BENEFITS
At 80% AMI, Approximately 24,000 Eligible Residents
•Affordable Housing Properties = Approximately 15% of 80% AMI Residents
Leverages City’s Investment in Get FoCo & Ease in Application
RISKS
Currently: Staff Exploration Needed, Unknown Tech & Operational Challenges
Privacy & Legal Details: “Auto Enroll” by Residential Address
3,800 x Average Household Size = Increased GTR Payout by $786,600
Page 255 of 309
Page 256 of 309
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Sheena Frève, Senior Analyst, Financial Planning & Analysis
Gerry Paul, Director of Purchasing
Date: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The Impact of Inflation on Capital Projects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Inflation is currently at historically high levels, with the consumer price index (CPI) increasing
by 8.6% from May 2021 to May 2022. Inflation in the construction industry is increasing at even
faster pace, rising by 10% to 17% over the past year. Adding to the problem, the supply chain is
experiencing pressure caused by higher costs and much longer lead times. The impact on the
City can be seen in recent requests for supplemental appropriations for capital projects by
Community Services, Planning, Development & Transportation, and Utilities.
The City anticipates continued pressure and has identified projects at risk due to inflation. The
expectation is that most funding shortfalls will be addressed through the 2023/2024 budget
process or through changes in scope, decreased levels of service, or delays impacting
implementation and future projects. At the same time, inflation is offset by higher City revenues
through increased sales tax receipts and investment income. Over the next five years, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will allocate billions of dollars to the state and local governments
in Colorado. This may cause increased pressure on construction costs.
Some mitigating strategies are available through the competitive procurement process and by
selecting the project delivery method that will result in the best outcomes. However, inflationary
headwinds will continue to limit the City’s ability to control rising construction costs. Staff are
planning to establish an inflationary reserve as part of the 2023/2024 budget submittal.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions does Council Finance Committee have regarding the impact of inflation on
capital projects?
• What questions does Council Finance Committee have regarding methods of procurement
and project delivery?
Page 257 of 309
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Inflation has risen by 8.6% from May 2021 to May 2022 according to the Consumer Price Index
(CPI), the highest inflation rate since 1981 (Appendix I). Even so, inflation in the construction
industry is rising at an even faster pace. The Engineering News-Record (ENR) construction cost
index indicates that road and bridge construction has risen by 10% since May 2021 while
construction on buildings has risen by 17% in the same period (Appendix II). This is confirmed
by the 16% increase shown in the Colorado Construction Cost Index which tracks the costs of
certain elements, such as asphalt and concrete, in projects bid and awarded by the Colorado
Department of Transportation (Appendix III).
Several cost drivers are contributing to the rapid rise of inflation in the construction industry.
Fuel is a major component of construction projects and gas prices have risen by 62% since June
2021 (Appendix IV). Labor costs as captured in the Employer Cost for Employee Compensation
show a 4.8% increase for all civilian workers from March 2021 to March 2022 and a 6.2%
increase for those in construction occupations (Appendix V). Right-of-Way (ROW) costs can be
a major cost driver for projects requiring land or easements. ROW is driven by fair market value
of real estate. Housing costs in Fort Collins have increased by 21% from the first quarter of 2021
to the first quarter of 2022, driving up the cost of ROW acquisitions (Appendix VI).
Adding to the inflationary pressure and contributing challenges of its own, the supply chain is
under increasing strain. The Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSPCI), produced by the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, tracks the state of the global supply chain using surveys and
data from the transportation and manufacturing sectors, including pricing, delivery times, and
backlogs. The GSPCI indicates an historically high level of pressure on the supply chain and its
authors submit that recent trends suggest a stabilization of pressures at these historically high
levels (Appendix VII).
These developments have created challenges for the City’s capital projects, particularly those
that were budgeted during a period of low inflation. Budget offers for the 2022 fiscal year were
researched and prepared beginning in the fall of 2020 until the submission deadline in April
2021. During this period, the ENR construction cost index indicated inflation was at or below
2%. Construction inflation climbed over 2% beginning in May 2021 as the budget review and
approval process began. Projects cannot go out to bid until the budget has been approved in
November. By that time, construction inflation had climbed to near 9%.
Page 258 of 309
As part of the competitive purchasing process, the City can use a number of cost mitigation
techniques, which are addressed in Attachment 2, to manage costs. However, throughout the
procurement process, projects are subject to market conditions.
Several appropriated projects have come before Council Finance Committee in recent months
requiring a supplemental appropriation due, in part, to inflation and supply chain issues. Those
projects are listed below.
Page 259 of 309
Additional impacts on appropriated projects are expected (Appendix VIII). However, at this time
it is anticipated that most affected projects will be addressed through the 2023/2024 budget
process or by reducing the project scope or delaying other projects.
In the 2023/2024 budget cycle, inflation has created a high level of uncertainty for staff
preparing budget offers. Capital project budget offers significantly impacted by inflation are
listed below. Inflation escalators of 6 to 31% were built into many of these projects along with
higher-than-average contingency, ranging from 15 to 25%. Some budget offers anticipate
incorporating scope changes and value engineering to counter funding shortfalls.
Inflation, sometimes compounded by deferred maintenance, has also had an impact on budget
offers for asset management projects (Appendix IX). Many ongoing asset management budget
offers are insufficient to meet City needs. As a result, enhancement offers were submitted to
achieve the desired replacement cycles and levels of service. In some cases, offers anticipate
lowering the level of service if additional funds are not available. For example, the Street
Maintenance program is only able to maintain roads every 21 years instead of every 16 years.
Page 260 of 309
Many offers have a 10 to 15% inflation cost escalator built into the project cost. Some offers
have a 10 to 15% contingency on top of current pricing.
Long lead times for certain equipment have added another layer of volatility to the mix. Some
equipment that previously was available off the shelf with travel time, arriving in a few weeks or
a month, may now take thirty-five to sixty weeks. This is particularly challenging as buildings
and equipment approach their end-of-life. On top of that, specific items, such as HVAC
equipment are experiencing price increases of 25% to 300% and traffic signal pole pricing has
increased by 90% this year.
While inflation has created many challenges for the City, it has also provided some offsets in the
form of increased revenues. During times of positive inflation, inflation is always adding to the
City’s sales tax receipts. In other words, as the price of goods rise, total taxable sales rise.
Within the past year, as inflation grew by 8.6%, about $5.5 million was added to the City’s sales
tax receipts that can be attributed to inflation, as detailed in the table below. That $5.5 million is
about 4% of the $145.6 million collect from June 2021 through May 2022.
Another way in which inflation increases City revenues is through investment income. While not
as immediate an impact as sales tax receipts, as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to
combat inflation, the rate of return for the City’s investment portfolio gradually increases as well,
as shown in the chart below. The Federal Reserve has increased the interest rate three times in
2022 as a response to inflation: by 25 basis points on March 17th, 50 basis points on May 5th, and
75 basis points on June 16th. An increase of 50 basis points applied to the City’s entire portfolio
Page 261 of 309
could ultimately result in an additional $3 million annualized. However, rising interest rates do
not impact the City’s entire portfolio immediately, but rather gradually over time.
The City’s Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) rate of return responds to rising interest
rates relatively quickly, closely following the market rate for money market deposits. The fixed-
income rate of return is slower to respond and tracks slightly behind the five-year treasury bill, as
shown below. About 20% of the City’s portfolio is in LGIP; 75% is fixed income, divided
between agency bonds and corporate bonds; and the balance of 5% is held in cash reserves to
address the City’s day-to-day financial needs. Interest rate hikes this year have contributed to
interest income that is 23% higher than budgeted year-to-date.
In the coming year, staff anticipate continued effects from inflation. On the positive side, rising
interest rates may cool the housing market. This could mean that fair market value for right-of-
way acquisition may stabilize.
Page 262 of 309
At the same time, as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) rolls out over the next five years,
the construction industry may experience continued pressure due to the influx of federal funds.
The BIL provides billions in funding for road and bridge projects, public transportation, water
infrastructure, the electric vehicle network, environmental remediation, and more. Formula
funding available to Colorado and new and expanded competitive grant programs are shown in
the tables below. With billions more in funding being awarded and distributed, projects may be
bid up as federal funds are awarded to local governments throughout Colorado on the same
timeline.
Procurement and Project Delivery Methods – included as Attachment 2
Page 263 of 309
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Appendices
Attachment 2 – Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Attachment 3 – Presentation slides
Page 264 of 309
ATTACHMENT 1
APPENDICES
Appendix I. Consumer Price Index
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 226.665 227.663 229.392 230.085 229.815 229.478 229.104 230.379 231.407 231.317 230.221 229.601
2013 230.280 232.166 232.773 232.531 232.945 233.504 233.596 233.877 234.149 233.546 233.069 233.049
2014 233.916 234.781 236.293 237.072 237.900 238.343 238.250 237.852 238.031 237.433 236.151 234.812
2015 233.707 234.722 236.119 236.599 237.805 238.638 238.654 238.316 237.945 237.838 237.336 236.525
2016 236.916 237.111 238.132 239.261 240.229 241.018 240.628 240.849 241.428 241.729 241.353 241.432
2017 242.839 243.603 243.801 244.524 244.733 244.955 244.786 245.519 246.819 246.663 246.669 246.524
2018 247.867 248.991 249.554 250.546 251.588 251.989 252.006 252.146 252.439 252.885 252.038 251.233
2019 251.712 252.776 254.202 255.548 256.092 256.143 256.571 256.558 256.759 257.346 257.208 256.974
2020 257.971 258.678 258.115 256.389 256.394 257.797 259.101 259.918 260.280 260.388 260.229 260.474
2021 261.582 263.014 264.877 267.054 269.195 271.696 273.003 273.567 274.310 276.589 277.948 278.802
2022 281.148 283.716 287.504 289.109 292.296
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), retrieved from
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Series ID CUUR0000SA0
Series Title: All items in the US city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
Base period: 1982-84=100
Page 265 of 309
200
220
240
260
280
300
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Inflation Has Increased 8.6% since May 2021
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Consumer Price Index
Increase Over Same Month in Prior Year
Page 266 of 309
Appendix II. Engineering News-Record Indices, Denver Region
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 4615.98 4569.27 4558.89 4657.54 4665.09 4665.09 4642.44 4648.92 4650.98 4632.99 4689.22 4689.22
2018 4689.81 4688.98 4688.98 4689.58 4751.84 4751.84 4723.98 4807.30 4863.09 4875.10 4872.10 4889.70
2019 4893.25 4907.16 4871.91 4896.16 4916.70 5118.44 5093.91 5109.47 5111.46 5120.21 5144.91 5138.85
2020 5153.93 5155.43 5166.00 5175.00 5177.50 5175.47 5182.68 5178.18 5182.52 5186.02 5207.06 5205.78
2021 5239.12 5257.83 5284.83 5320.92 5379.40 5536.25 5546.00 5714.19 5781.97 5830.22 5871.97 5948.13
2022 6021.13 6110.37 6191.70 6233.95 6269.45
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 7361.63 7093.63 7083.25 7403.19 7410.74 7410.74 7388.09 7394.58 7396.64 7378.65 7412.32 7412.32
2018 7412.92 7412.08 7412.08 7412.68 7474.95 7474.95 7447.08 7484.83 7487.08 7499.09 7499.09 7513.69
2019 7505.86 7519.77 7484.52 7508.77 7529.30 7542.17 7517.63 7533.20 7535.19 7543.94 7542.44 7536.38
2020 7551.46 7552.96 7563.54 7572.55 7575.05 7573.02 7580.23 7575.73 7580.07 7583.57 7604.60 7603.33
2021 7636.68 7655.40 7682.40 7718.50 7777.00 7933.85 7943.60 8138.79 8179.59 8227.84 8269.59 8345.76
2022 8418.76 8430.55 8511.88 8554.13 8589.63
Engineering News-Review Denver Building Cost Index
Engineering News-Review Denver Construction Cost Index
Source: Engineering News-Record, City Cost Index - Denver, http://www.enr.com/economics/current_costs
The Building Cost Index tracks material and labor components of vertical construction, like buildings. The BCI
uses 68.38 hours of skilled labor, multiplied by the 20-city wage- fringe average for three trades–bricklayers,
carpenters and structural ironworkers.
The Construction Cost Index tracks material and labor components of horizontal construction, like roads and
bridges. The CCI uses 200 hours of common labor, multiplied by the 20-city average rate for wages and fringe
benefits.
For their materials component, both indexes use 25 cwt of fabricated standard structural steel at the 20-city
average price, 1.128 tons of bulk portland cement priced locally and 1,088 board ft of 2x4 lumber priced
locally. The ENR indexes measure how much it costs to purchase this hypothetical package of goods compared
to what it was in the base year.
Base year: 1913=$100
Page 267 of 309
Page 268 of 309
Appendix III. Colorado Construction Cost Index
Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
2017 0.966 0.957 1.405 1.327
2018 1.250 1.455 1.309 1.079
2019 1.278 1.436 1.450 1.234
2020 1.259 1.153 1.292 1.509
2021 1.441 1.355 1.447 1.564
2022 1.675
Colorado Construction Cost Index
Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Construction Cost Index Report, Calendar Year 2022,
First Quarter, retrieved from https://www.codot.gov/business/eema/constructioncostindex
The Colorado Construction Cost Index is a composite index based on the weighted average prices and
quantities of major sub groups of items received in Design-Bid-Build projects bid and awarded by the Colorado
Department of Transportation. Item sub groups include Earthwork, Hot Mix Asphalt, Concrete Pavement,
Structural Concrete, and Reinforcing Steel.
Base period: Quarter 1 2012=1.0000
Page 269 of 309
Appendix IV. Gasoline Prices
Date
Dollars
per
Gallon
Date
Dollars
per
Gallon
Date
Dollars
per
Gallon
Date
Dollars
per
Gallon
Date
Dollars
per
Gallon
Jan 30, 2017 2.408 Feb 26, 2018 2.666 Mar 25, 2019 2.701 Apr 20, 2020 1.91 May 17, 2021 3.118
Feb 06, 2017 2.405 Mar 05, 2018 2.679 Apr 01, 2019 2.77 Apr 27, 2020 1.87 May 24, 2021 3.112
Feb 13, 2017 2.418 Mar 12, 2018 2.677 Apr 08, 2019 2.826 May 04, 2020 1.883 May 31, 2021 3.119
Feb 20, 2017 2.414 Mar 19, 2018 2.716 Apr 15, 2019 2.912 May 11, 2020 1.941 Jun 07, 2021 3.128
Feb 27, 2017 2.427 Mar 26, 2018 2.764 Apr 22, 2019 2.926 May 18, 2020 1.969 Jun 14, 2021 3.161
Mar 06, 2017 2.452 Apr 02, 2018 2.817 Apr 29, 2019 2.972 May 25, 2020 2.049 Jun 21, 2021 3.153
Mar 13, 2017 2.434 Apr 09, 2018 2.811 May 06, 2019 2.983 Jun 01, 2020 2.064 Jun 28, 2021 3.185
Mar 20, 2017 2.433 Apr 16, 2018 2.863 May 13, 2019 2.954 Jun 08, 2020 2.123 Jul 05, 2021 3.216
Mar 27, 2017 2.428 Apr 23, 2018 2.914 May 20, 2019 2.939 Jun 15, 2020 2.185 Jul 12, 2021 3.227
Apr 03, 2017 2.471 Apr 30, 2018 2.961 May 27, 2019 2.909 Jun 22, 2020 2.216 Jul 19, 2021 3.247
Apr 10, 2017 2.534 May 07, 2018 2.96 Jun 03, 2019 2.893 Jun 29, 2020 2.26 Jul 26, 2021 3.232
Apr 17, 2017 2.546 May 14, 2018 2.949 Jun 10, 2019 2.821 Jul 06, 2020 2.265 Aug 02, 2021 3.256
Apr 24, 2017 2.559 May 21, 2018 2.999 Jun 17, 2019 2.759 Jul 13, 2020 2.283 Aug 09, 2021 3.269
May 01, 2017 2.522 May 28, 2018 3.039 Jun 24, 2019 2.741 Jul 20, 2020 2.275 Aug 16, 2021 3.272
May 08, 2017 2.484 Jun 04, 2018 3.018 Jul 01, 2019 2.798 Jul 27, 2020 2.265 Aug 23, 2021 3.243
May 15, 2017 2.481 Jun 11, 2018 2.989 Jul 08, 2019 2.827 Aug 03, 2020 2.266 Aug 30, 2021 3.237
May 22, 2017 2.51 Jun 18, 2018 2.958 Jul 15, 2019 2.86 Aug 10, 2020 2.256 Sep 06, 2021 3.273
May 29, 2017 2.516 Jun 25, 2018 2.913 Jul 22, 2019 2.833 Aug 17, 2020 2.256 Sep 13, 2021 3.262
Jun 05, 2017 2.525 Jul 02, 2018 2.924 Jul 29, 2019 2.798 Aug 24, 2020 2.272 Sep 20, 2021 3.28
Jun 12, 2017 2.479 Jul 09, 2018 2.937 Aug 05, 2019 2.772 Aug 31, 2020 2.311 Sep 27, 2021 3.271
Jun 19, 2017 2.433 Jul 16, 2018 2.943 Aug 12, 2019 2.71 Sep 07, 2020 2.302 Oct 04, 2021 3.285
Jun 26, 2017 2.404 Jul 23, 2018 2.911 Aug 19, 2019 2.684 Sep 14, 2020 2.274 Oct 11, 2021 3.36
Jul 03, 2017 2.376 Jul 30, 2018 2.924 Aug 26, 2019 2.661 Sep 21, 2020 2.259 Oct 18, 2021 3.416
Jul 10, 2017 2.411 Aug 06, 2018 2.93 Sep 02, 2019 2.651 Sep 28, 2020 2.259 Oct 25, 2021 3.476
Jul 17, 2017 2.392 Aug 13, 2018 2.921 Sep 09, 2019 2.638 Oct 05, 2020 2.262 Nov 01, 2021 3.484
Jul 24, 2017 2.426 Aug 20, 2018 2.9 Sep 16, 2019 2.64 Oct 12, 2020 2.257 Nov 08, 2021 3.505
Jul 31, 2017 2.467 Aug 27, 2018 2.906 Sep 23, 2019 2.741 Oct 19, 2020 2.24 Nov 15, 2021 3.495
Aug 07, 2017 2.492 Sep 03, 2018 2.903 Sep 30, 2019 2.737 Oct 26, 2020 2.234 Nov 22, 2021 3.493
Aug 14, 2017 2.497 Sep 10, 2018 2.912 Oct 07, 2019 2.742 Nov 02, 2020 2.204 Nov 29, 2021 3.478
Aug 21, 2017 2.474 Sep 17, 2018 2.921 Oct 14, 2019 2.727 Nov 09, 2020 2.188 Dec 06, 2021 3.44
Aug 28, 2017 2.513 Sep 24, 2018 2.923 Oct 21, 2019 2.735 Nov 16, 2020 2.202 Dec 13, 2021 3.414
Sep 04, 2017 2.794 Oct 01, 2018 2.947 Oct 28, 2019 2.692 Nov 23, 2020 2.194 Dec 20, 2021 3.395
Sep 11, 2017 2.8 Oct 08, 2018 2.984 Nov 04, 2019 2.702 Nov 30, 2020 2.211 Dec 27, 2021 3.375
Sep 18, 2017 2.75 Oct 15, 2018 2.961 Nov 11, 2019 2.711 Dec 07, 2020 2.246 Jan 03, 2022 3.381
Sep 25, 2017 2.701 Oct 22, 2018 2.925 Nov 18, 2019 2.688 Dec 14, 2020 2.247 Jan 10, 2022 3.394
Oct 02, 2017 2.682 Oct 29, 2018 2.896 Nov 25, 2019 2.672 Dec 21, 2020 2.311 Jan 17, 2022 3.404
Oct 09, 2017 2.622 Nov 05, 2018 2.84 Dec 02, 2019 2.667 Dec 28, 2020 2.33 Jan 24, 2022 3.421
Oct 16, 2017 2.605 Nov 12, 2018 2.773 Dec 09, 2019 2.652 Jan 04, 2021 2.336 Jan 31, 2022 3.464
Oct 23, 2017 2.594 Nov 19, 2018 2.7 Dec 16, 2019 2.627 Jan 11, 2021 2.403 Feb 07, 2022 3.538
Oct 30, 2017 2.602 Nov 26, 2018 2.63 Dec 23, 2019 2.621 Jan 18, 2021 2.464 Feb 14, 2022 3.581
Nov 06, 2017 2.673 Dec 03, 2018 2.544 Dec 30, 2019 2.658 Jan 25, 2021 2.478 Feb 21, 2022 3.624
Nov 13, 2017 2.706 Dec 10, 2018 2.511 Jan 06, 2020 2.665 Feb 01, 2021 2.495 Feb 28, 2022 3.701
Nov 20, 2017 2.683 Dec 17, 2018 2.46 Jan 13, 2020 2.657 Feb 08, 2021 2.548 Mar 07, 2022 4.196
Nov 27, 2017 2.648 Dec 24, 2018 2.413 Jan 20, 2020 2.625 Feb 15, 2021 2.588 Mar 14, 2022 4.414
Dec 04, 2017 2.617 Dec 31, 2018 2.358 Jan 27, 2020 2.595 Feb 22, 2021 2.717 Mar 21, 2022 4.343
Dec 11, 2017 2.601 Jan 07, 2019 2.329 Feb 03, 2020 2.546 Mar 01, 2021 2.796 Mar 28, 2022 4.334
Dec 18, 2017 2.568 Jan 14, 2019 2.338 Feb 10, 2020 2.511 Mar 08, 2021 2.857 Apr 04, 2022 4.274
Dec 25, 2017 2.589 Jan 21, 2019 2.34 Feb 17, 2020 2.518 Mar 15, 2021 2.94 Apr 11, 2022 4.196
Jan 01, 2018 2.637 Jan 28, 2019 2.343 Feb 24, 2020 2.555 Mar 22, 2021 2.954 Apr 18, 2022 4.17
Jan 08, 2018 2.639 Feb 04, 2019 2.341 Mar 02, 2020 2.514 Mar 29, 2021 2.941 Apr 25, 2022 4.211
Jan 15, 2018 2.673 Feb 11, 2019 2.361 Mar 09, 2020 2.468 Apr 05, 2021 2.945 May 02, 2022 4.285
Jan 22, 2018 2.684 Feb 18, 2019 2.4 Mar 16, 2020 2.343 Apr 12, 2021 2.939 May 09, 2022 4.428
Jan 29, 2018 2.723 Feb 25, 2019 2.471 Mar 23, 2020 2.217 Apr 19, 2021 2.945 May 16, 2022 4.591
Feb 05, 2018 2.753 Mar 04, 2019 2.502 Mar 30, 2020 2.103 Apr 26, 2021 2.962 May 23, 2022 4.694
Feb 12, 2018 2.724 Mar 11, 2019 2.549 Apr 06, 2020 2.022 May 03, 2021 2.981 May 30, 2022 4.727
Feb 19, 2018 2.676 Mar 18, 2019 2.625 Apr 13, 2020 1.951 May 10, 2021 3.051 Jun 06, 2022 4.977
Weekly U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices
Page 270 of 309
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices
(Dollars per Gallon), retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm, June 27,
2022.
Page 271 of 309
Appendix V. Employer Cost for Employee Compensation
Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
2017 35.28 35.28 35.64 35.87
2018 36.32 36.22 36.63 36.32
2019 36.77 36.61 37.03 37.10
2020 37.73 38.20 38.26 38.60
2021 39.01 38.91 39.55 40.35
2022 40.90
Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
2017 37.05 37.56 37.77 36.60
2018 36.89 36.84 37.27 36.71
2019 37.08 37.37 37.69 37.90
2020 38.49 38.47 38.48 39.92
2021 40.05 40.63 41.09 42.03
2022 42.55
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation: All Civilian Workers
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation: Construction, and Extraction,
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey, Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation, Civilian Workers Dataset, https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/#tables, released June 16, 2022.
Civilian workers include both private industry and state and local government. Excluded from private industry
are the self-employed, agricultural workers, and private household workers. Federal government workers are
excluded from the public sector.
Total compensation includes costs for wages and salaries as well as total benefits. Total benefits are comprised
of five benefit categories (paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance (including health), retirement and savings,
and legally required benefits.
Estimates are for the average costs to employers for wages and salaries and benefit components, per
employee hour worked.
Page 272 of 309
Page 273 of 309
Appendix VI. Housing Prices
Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
2017 263.37 272.68 277.99 278.81
2018 284.60 291.73 297.33 296.83
2019 299.41 305.13 307.83 308.70
2020 311.25 314.98 316.70 321.55
2021 328.46 348.06 368.81 379.27
2022 395.89
All-Transactions House Price Index for Fort Collins, CO
Source: U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, All-Transactions House Price Index for Fort Collins, CO (MSA),
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS22660Q,
June 27, 2022.
Estimated using sales prices and appraisal data.
Data is not seasonally adjusted.
Base period: Quarter 1 1995=100
Page 274 of 309
Appendix VII. Supply Chain Pressure
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1998 -0.93032 -0.41374 -0.05084 -0.10571 -0.47633 -0.84618 -0.94885 -0.94589 -0.95603 -0.73666 -0.82609 -0.50452
1999 -0.24325 -0.05015 -0.40275 -0.29854 -0.3709 -0.40903 -0.64458 -0.45861 -0.32707 -0.12675 -0.0695 -0.00377
2000 -0.46431 -0.35662 -0.2285 0.106389 0.172254 -0.10022 -0.11162 -0.12004 -0.17839 -0.70187 -0.93461 -1.18408
2001 -1.13535 -0.97847 -0.97179 -1.21444 -1.26343 -0.82028 -0.87678 -0.72129 -0.59692 -1.16638 -1.25699 -0.99473
2002 -0.93507 -0.42215 -0.42723 -0.51338 -0.21848 -0.44126 -0.81823 -0.90962 -0.91433 -1.13153 -0.7526 -0.54509
2003 -0.49837 -0.36102 -0.23987 -0.4708 -0.19327 -0.21913 -0.14826 -0.19346 -0.08307 -0.30461 -0.29418 -0.26684
2004 -0.36472 -0.24478 0.100147 0.57858 0.533348 0.513092 -0.30433 0.264445 0.009061 -0.51984 0.04527 0.21218
2005 -0.09597 -0.21968 -0.2739 -1.33788 -1.07678 -0.95909 -1.03405 -0.77438 -0.03974 -0.064 -0.68406 -0.7464
2006 -0.41383 -0.68858 -0.45343 0.018786 0.116457 0.072781 -0.12504 0.092324 -0.53373 -0.3979 -0.20308 -0.43956
2007 -0.8521 -0.70942 -0.50367 -0.74828 -0.28134 -0.36329 -0.38771 -0.0232 -0.06523 -0.63406 -0.42425 -0.15214
2008 -0.31233 0.439418 0.191963 0.167316 -0.07001 0.300943 1.035653 0.2611 -0.55121 -1.05281 -1.50208 -0.58248
2009 -0.40802 -0.62588 -0.05314 0.659272 0.184964 -0.69437 -0.87571 -1.16552 -0.4753 -0.39492 -0.73187 -0.59847
2010 -0.23291 -0.0952 0.433731 0.28032 0.376808 -0.04954 0.07127 0.457999 0.431988 0.768152 0.430014 0.690846
2011 0.833567 0.413239 0.770698 1.598068 0.994596 0.257968 0.32234 -0.02521 -0.56273 -0.37809 0.151989 -0.05933
2012 0.357587 -0.03025 -0.394 -0.2722 -0.67682 -0.64192 -0.62987 -0.10213 -0.19955 0.040741 -0.31448 -0.12789
2013 -0.0485 -0.39875 -0.54348 -0.72539 -0.8223 -0.60519 -0.66219 -0.52251 -0.25446 -0.13223 -0.61167 -0.45242
2014 -0.61714 -0.24363 -0.56702 -0.79226 -0.73627 -0.62556 -0.77874 -0.60381 -0.78053 -0.55614 -0.95702 -0.35752
2015 -0.49721 -0.31592 -0.39421 -0.24677 -0.52178 -0.80683 -0.38197 -0.668 -0.38582 -0.19286 -0.62567 -0.57112
2016 -0.74285 -0.69213 -0.5837 -0.16687 -0.70393 -0.25133 -0.14934 0.130618 -0.27668 -0.02722 -0.30508 -0.25048
2017 0.214831 0.249522 0.133157 0.066983 -0.06794 0.157918 0.175424 0.472564 0.564101 0.811009 0.882981 0.728647
2018 0.619968 0.112802 0.499643 0.589813 0.38986 0.426212 0.425453 0.574479 0.482569 0.547604 0.455893 0.46954
2019 0.564204 0.15026 0.20798 0.043877 -0.64422 -0.45865 -0.43492 -0.32055 0.151478 0.063527 0.136371 0.015593
2020 0.057126 1.202295 2.593614 3.363095 2.771491 2.463189 2.717681 1.235885 0.594005 0.12583 0.730225 1.65447
2021 1.435185 1.904566 2.174058 2.480835 2.942833 2.680503 2.975062 3.288763 3.307559 3.855865 4.296702 4.38233
2022 3.684157 2.767151 2.801057 3.398199 2.899285
Global Supply Chain Pressure Index
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Global Supply Chain Pressure Index,
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/gscpi#/interactive.
The Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSCPI) integrates a number of commonly used metrics with the aim of
providing a comprehensive summary of potential supply chain disruptions. Global transportation costs are
measured by employing data from the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) and the Harpex index, as well as airfreight cost
indices from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The GSCPI also uses several supply chain-related components
from Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) surveys, focusing on manufacturing firms across seven interconnected
economies: China, the euro area, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The index is normalized such that a zero indicates that the index is at its average value with positive values
representing how many standard deviations the index is above this average value (and negative values
representing the opposite).
Page 275 of 309
Page 276 of 309
Appendix VIII. Appropriated Projects Anticipating Inflation Impact
Project Description Service Area Current
Budget Contract Type Project Phase Impact of Inflation
Buckinghorse Neighborhood
Park
Community
Services $ 3,181,495 CM/GC Breaking Ground end of
June 2022
Anticipating cost overruns that will be
addressed during the 2023/24 budget
process. Will also explore scope
changes and value engineering.
Carnegie Center Renovation Community
Services $ 4,845,820 CM/GC
Design near 20% and
CM/GC Contractor on
board
Project costs rose, creating a shortfall,
but the City was able to fill in the gap
with grant funding.
Southeast
Recreation/Community
Center
Community
Services $ 17,561,000 CM/GC
Working to determine
final site location and
overall budget.
Anticipating to post
design RFP this fall of
2022.
Anticipating cost overrun of about $15
million beyond 2023/24 budget request,
due in large part to scope changes. Final
project cost dependent on stakeholder
partnerships.
Laporte Bridges PDT $ 2,799,472 CM/GC
CM/GC Contract in place.
Currently providing
preconstruction services
at 60% Design
Documents.
Anticipated funding need of $2.8 million
addressed through 2023/24 bridge
program budget offers.
College and Trilby PDT $ 10,658,706 CM/GC Draft RFP for CM/GC and
60% Design Documents
Assumes Community Project grant
funding. Anticipated funding need
addressed by $3.8 million request from
the general fund and $2 million from
CCIP - Arterial Intersection funds in
2023/24 budget process.
Laporte Corridor PDT $ 3,127,500 Undetermined Design near 30% Design
Documents.
Anticpated funding need addressed by
$1.6 million general fund request
adressed in 2023/24 budget process.
Siphon Bicycle/Pedestrian
Overpass PDT $ 4,805,050 Design/ Bid/
Build
30% Schematic Design
Documents
Pending 2023/24 MMOF grant award of
$450,000. Anticipated funding need
addressed by $450,000 request from the
general fund and $600,000 from CCIP -
Grade Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian
Crossing funds in 2023/24 budget
process.
Operations Services:
Facilities Major/Minor
Repair & Replacement
IES $ 3,840,484 Various Various Stages
Some repairs/replacements may be
delayed until next year. Funding gap
reflected in 2023/24 enhacement offer.
Streetlight Replacement Utilities $ 1,056,000 Performed In-
House Ongoing LED conversion program may be
extended.
Water Production
Replacement Program
(SCADA)
Utilities $ 515,000 T&M-Fixed
Pricing Ongoing Minor projects may be delayed.
Water Distribution System
Replacement Utilities $ 1,000,000 T&M - Fixed
Pricing Ongoing Reduction in pipe replaced in annual
program.
Water Meter Replacement Utilities $ 850,000 Performed In-
House Ongoing Meters may stay in service beyond
normal cycle.
Water Reclamation
Replacement Utilities $ 1,000,000 T&M+ Mark-Up
- Fixed Pricing Ongoing Minor projects may be delayed.
Wastewater Collection
System Replacement program Utilities $ 1,750,000 T&M+ Mark-Up
- Fixed Pricing Ongoing Reduction in pipe replaced in annual
program.
Cured in Place Pipe program Utilities $ 750,000 T&M - Fixed
Pricing Ongoing Reduction in pipe lined in annual
program.
Grand Total $ 57,740,527
Page 277 of 309
Appendix IX. Asset Management & Enhancement 2023/24 Budget Offers
Impacted by Inflation
Page 278 of 309
ATTACHMENT 2
PROCUREMENT AND PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS
Staff: Gerry Paul, Director of Purchasing
Date: July 7, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City utilizes several different procurement methods to procure and deliver capital projects.
Delivering a high performing capital project successfully requires thoughtful consideration of the
contracting strategy including selection of the appropriate project delivery method and
procurement approach. Although the Design/Bid/Build approach is the most conventional
approach for delivering capital projects in the public sector, Alternative Delivery Methods offer
innovative approaches with different opportunities and challenges to the traditional
Design/Bid/Build. The primary benefit offered by an Alternative Delivery Method is
involvement of the Construction Contractor early in the project design. This involvement offers
the potential for improved cost and schedule estimating, enhanced constructability, and most
importantly the reduction of risk and uncertainty.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The project delivery method is the process by which a construction project is designed and
constructed. The different project delivery methods are distinguished by the manner in which
contracts between the City, designers and contractors are formed. The City utilizes several
approaches to procure and deliver capital projects including:
1. Design/Bid/Build (DBB)
2. Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) or Construction Manager At-Risk (CMAR)
3. Alternative Project Delivery System (APDS)
4. Design/Build (DB)
No single project delivery method is appropriate for every project. Each project must be evaluated
to determine the optimum delivery method.
A brief overview or each approach for delivering capital construction projects follows.
Design/Bid/Build
The Design/Bid/Build approach is the traditional method for delivering capital projects in the
public sector. When using Design/Bid/Build, a sequential process begins with the design
completed by the City or a Consultant, to furnish complete design services, and then solicit bids
and awarding a separate construction contract based on the Consultant’s complete design. In the
Design/Bid/Build contract the Construction Contractor “owns” delivery of the project in
Page 279 of 309
accordance with the design to include all associated risk. However, the City “owns” the details
of the design during construction and as a result, is responsible for the cost attributable to any
errors or omissions of the design encountered in construction.
The competitive procurement process used to select the Construction Contractor is the
competitive sealed bid. Procurements accomplished by bid are awarded to the lowest Responsive
and Responsible bidder.
The City’s Construction Contract is the contracting mechanism utilized and the project cost is
firm-fixed-price based on the bid schedule submitted by the awarded bidder.
Potential advantages offered by the Design/Bid/Build approach include:
- Primarily qualification-based selection of the Consultant
- City maintains control of the design
- Market based selection of the Construction Contractor with competitive pricing
- Firm-fixed-price construction contract
Limitations of the Design/Bid/Build approach include:
- No contractor input during design may negatively impact cost and schedule
- The amount of time required to perform a linear Design/Bid/Build delivery process
- Construction schedules and cost estimates developed by the Consultant prior to
construction onboarding can be unrealistic due to lack of Construction Contractor input
- Low bid selection may lead to potential delays, poor quality, and other adverse outcomes
- Changes in design subject to change orders
Examples of Design/Bid/Build projects include:
- Timberline Underpass for Trail System
- Siphon Overpass for Trail System
- Concrete Maintenance Phases 1, II, III
- Transfort Bus Stop Upgrades
Alternative Delivery Methods
In addition to Design/Bid/Build the City utilizes several different Alternative Delivery Methods
including:
1. Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) or Construction Manager At-Risk (CMAR)
2. Alternative Project Delivery System (APDS)
3. Design Build
The primary benefit of utilizing an Alternative Delivery Method is early involvement in the
project by the Construction Contractor.
The role of the Construction Contractor during the design or pre-construction phase of the
project is to share its expertise to provide input to the project team, to include, but not limited to
the following:
- Estimate quantities of materials, labor and equipment required for construction
Page 280 of 309
- Determine tasks, sequencing of work, and schedule estimates
- Provide estimates for costs early and regularly throughout the design process, in order to
inform design and scope decisions
- Understanding of availability, lead-time, shipping, cost, capacities of materials, labor, and
equipment
- Identify risks and methods or solutions to mitigate risk during design
- Constructability, alternative solutions, value engineering, cost avoidance
Contract Manager/General Contractor or Contract Manager At-Risk
The Contract Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) or Contract Manager At-Risk (CMAR)
process engages the Construction Contractor early in the design process, typically at about 30%
design completion. CM/GC or CMAR brings the Construction Contractor into the design
process at a stage where definitive input can have a positive impact on the project. The
Construction Contractor’s role during the design or pre-construction phase of the project
includes, but is not limited to, price estimating, constructability reviews, value engineering,
scheduling, phasing, and risk analysis. Most CM/GC or CMAR contracts include both lump sum
pay items, and items that will be measured and paid on a unit price basis. Under the CM/GC
approach the Construction Contractor competitively bids materials and subcontracts. A
significant characteristic of this delivery method is the establishment of a Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) which is typically established when the design is 90% complete. As part of the
establishment of the GMP an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) is completed to confirm price
reasonableness. Negotiations to establish the GMP is "open book” with the Construction
Contractor disclosing their costs to the City.
Once the GMP is established, the CM/GC “owns” delivery of the project in accordance with the
design to include all associated risk. However, the City “owns” the details of the design during
construction and as a result, is responsible for the cost attributable to any errors or omissions of
the design encountered in construction.
Limitations of the CM/GC or CMAR approach include:
- Use of Federal funds require prior approval by the Federal awarding agency
- Price risk due to the single source construction contract negotiations
- There is no contractual relationship between the Consultant and Construction Contractor
- Additional time may be necessary to build trust and partnership
- Innovation can add or reduce cost and/or time
CM/GC or CMAR contracts may be considered for high-risk, complex, schedule driven project
where early Construction Contractor involvement is warranted, but not required at the initiation
of the design process. This approach can be particularly valuable for non-standard types of
designs where it is difficult for the City to develop the technical requirements that would be
necessary for other project approaches without expert input.
Examples of CM/GC or CMAR projects include:
- Utilities Administration Building – 222 Laporte Ave.
Page 281 of 309
- Police Training Center
- College and Trilby Intersection
- Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection
Alternative Project Delivery System (APDS)
The Alternative Project Delivery System (APDS) approach is an innovative delivery process for
the design and construction of large-scale, complex, capital projects with high levels of risk and
uncertainty. APDS is only used by the Utilities department. APDS is a team approach
comprised of; 1) City project team; 2) Consultant team; and 3) Construction Contractor team.
While the APDS approach shares similarities with the Construction Manager/General Contractor
(CM/GC) or Contract Manager At-Risk (CMAR) delivery method, there are material differences
including:
1. Selection of the Construction Contractor is qualification based with limited up-front
competitive pricing;
2. The Construction Contractor team is engaged as early as the concept and alternative
evaluation phases of the project;
3. Project cost is based on time and materials plus a fixed fee percentage mark-up. APDS
projects typically do not include a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP);
4. City assumes primary risk for unforeseen and/or unanticipated conditions.
Limitations of the ADPS approach include:
- Federally funded contracts prohibit cost plus contracts
- City assumes primary risk for unforeseen and/or unanticipated conditions
- Time and materials plus a fixed fee percentage mark-up
- No Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
Examples of APDS projects include:
- Michigan Ditch
- Poudre River Pipeline
APDS is to be used solely for capital Improvement projects requiring new designs or processes
to resolve complex and technical issues where it is difficult for the City to develop technical
requirements necessary for traditional Design/Bid/Build, CM/GC, CMAR, or Design/Build.
APDS may also be used on complex projects where multiple design alternatives exist and early
input from a Construction Contractor would be advantageous to the City.
Design/Build
The Design/Build approach is one which the City contracts with a single entity to design and
construct the capital project based on limited design details. This delivery method combines the
design and construction phases of a project into a single contract. In the Design/Build contract
the contractor retains a greater share of the risk.
Page 282 of 309
Potential advantages offered by the Design/Build approach include:
- Greater innovation in selecting design, materials and construction methods
- Reduces claims due to design errors
- Accelerates response time and dispute resolution through a team effort
- Single contract that addresses quality, cost, and schedule from design through
construction
- Shortened project delivery time
- Offers price certainty as construction cost is known and fixed during design
Design/Build may be considered for capital improvement projects requiring:
- Compressed project schedule and improved schedule certainty
- Enhance cost certainty during the design process
- Project scope can be adequately defined without 100% plans, specifications, and
estimates
- Limited time available for project oversight by City staff.
Limitations of the Design/Build approach include:
- Shifts primary control and responsibility to the Design/Builder
- Requires comprehensive and carefully prepared performance specifications
- The City may need to relinquish some control over the final details of design
development
- Competitive bidding of services and materials is managed by the Design/Builder
- The City’s interests may be underrepresented throughout the process
Due to the limitations of the Design/Build approach, this approach is not frequently utilized by
the City.
SUMMARY
Delivering a high performing capital project successfully requires thoughtful consideration of the
contracting strategy including selection of the appropriate project delivery method and
procurement approach. Selection of the optimum project delivery approach can result in
improved outcomes such as cost, schedule, innovation, and reduced risk.
The below table highlights the significant differences between each approach.
Page 283 of 309
Distinguishing Factors Design/Bid/Build CM/GC Design/Build APDS
Early Supplier Involvement X X X
Complexity & Innovation X X X
City "Owned" Design Risk X X X
City "Owned" Construction Risk X
Construction Contractor Selection Primarily Price Base X
Firm-Fixed Price Cost X
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) X X
Open Book Financials X X X
Page 284 of 309
The Impact of Inflation
on Capital Projects
07-07-22
Sheena Frève
Senior Analyst, Financial Planning &
Analysis
Gerry Paul
Director of Purchasing
Page 285 of 309
•What questions does Council Finance Committee have regarding the impact of inflation on
capital projects?
•What questions does Council Finance Committee have regarding methods of procurement
and project delivery?
2Council Finance Committee Considerations
Page 286 of 309
3Agenda
•Inflation Measures
•Project Impacts
•Revenue Considerations
•Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
•Questions?
Page 287 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•The Consumer Price Index
increased by 8.6% from May
2021 to May 2022.
•This is the highest year-over-
year inflation rate in forty years.
4
Consumer Price Index
200
220
240
260
280
300
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Inflation Has Increased 8.6% since May 2021
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Consumer Price Index
Increase Over Same Month in Prior Year
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), retrieved from https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/surveymost Page 288 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•The Engineering News-Record
(ENR) Construction Cost Index
(CCI) for Denver, which tracks
horizontal construction, like
streets and bridges, shows a
10% increase since May 2021.
•The ENR Building Cost Index
(BCI) for Denver, which tracks
vertical construction, like
buildings, shows a 17%
increase since May 2021.
5
Construction Indices show
increases beyond CPI
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Construction Indices are Rising Faster than CPI
Denver Building Cost Index Denver Constuction Cost Index
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Construction Costs Have Grown Over 10%
Compared to the Same Time Last Year
Denver BCI Increase Over Same Month in Prior Year
Denver CCI Increase Over Same Month in Prior Year
Source: Engineering News-Record, City Cost Index -Denver,
http://www.enr.com/economics/current_costs Page 289 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•This index, published by the
Colorado Department of
Transportation, tracks the cost
of certain elements, such as
asphalt and concrete, in
construction projects bid and
awarded.
•The index shows an increase of
16% from the first quarter of
2021 to 2022.
6
The Colorado Construction
Cost Index
Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado
Construction Cost Index Report, Calendar Year 2022, First
Quarter, retrieved from
https://www.codot.gov/business/eema/constructioncostindex
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Q1
2017
Q2
2017
Q3
2017
Q4
2017
Q1
2018
Q2
2018
Q3
2018
Q4
2018
Q1
2019
Q2
2019
Q3
2019
Q4
2019
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2020
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2021
Q1
2022
The Colorado Construction Cost Index Indicates a 16.2%
Increase from Q1 2021 to Q1 2022
Page 290 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•Fuel is a major cost driver for
construction projects.
•Gas prices have increased by
62% since June 2021.
7
Gas Prices are Rising Rapidly
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly U.S.
All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars
per Gallon), retrieved from
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm,
June 27, 2022.
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Gas Prices (All Grades) Have Increased by 62%
Since June 2021
Page 291 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•The Employee Compensation
Index indicates that the cost of
labor is rising.
•Total compensation for all
civilian workers rose by 4.8%
from March 2021 to March 2022.
•Total compensation in
construction occupations rose
by 6.2% during the same period.
8
Labor Costs are Rising
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National
Compensation Survey, Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation, Civilian Workers Dataset,
https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/#tables, released June 16, 2022.
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
The Cost of Labor is Rising, with Construction Labor
Costs Rising at a Faster Rate than All Civilian Workers
when Compared to the Same Time Last Year
Construction Labor Costs Change Over Prior Year
All Civilian Workers Labor Cost Change Over Prior Year
Page 292 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•House prices in Fort Collins
have increased by 21% from the
first quarter of 2021 to the first
quarter of 2022.
•As right-of-way costs are driven
by fair market value, ROW costs
have increased rapidly as well,
contributing to increased project
costs.
9
Right-of-Way Costs follow Fair
Market Value
Source: U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, All-
Transactions House Price Index for Fort Collins, CO (MSA),
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS22660Q, June 27,
2022.
200
250
300
350
400
450
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
House Prices in Fort Collins increased by 21%
from March 2021 to March 2022
Page 293 of 309
Inflation is at Historic Levels
•The Global Supply Chain
Pressure Index (GSCPI) tracks
the state of global supply
chains using data and surveys
from the transportation and
manufacturing sectors.
•Recent trends suggest a
stabilization of pressures at
historically high levels,
according to the GSCPI’s
creators.
10
Global Supply Chain
Pressures
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Global
Supply Chain Pressure Index,
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/gscpi#/interac
tive.
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
The Global Supply Chain Pressure Index Indicates Historically High
Level of Pressure
Page 294 of 309
City Projects Have Already Been Impacted
•The City’s budget process, by
design, has a long lead time.
•Research and preparation for
budget offers for 2022 was
conducted in the fall and winter
of 2020 and spring of 2021.
•This makes the current level of
inflation a challenge, particularly
for the City’s construction
projects.
11
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
The Timing of the Budget Process Compared
to Construction Inflation
Staff is researching and
preparing budget offers
Budget review and
approval
Approved projects
go out to bid
Page 295 of 309
City Projects Have Already Been Impacted 12
•Inflation and supply chain issues
have caused some recent projects
to exceed the original budget.
•Should a capital project exceed its
original budget, staff assess for
progress, scope/design changes,
or an additional appropriation. The
appropriation would surface either
through the budget process or
through a supplemental
appropriation.
•The electric transformer
replacement program experienced
a dual challenge of inflation and
supply chain delays.
Inflation: Appropriated Projects Already Addressed
Project Description Service Area Original
Budget
Budget
Increase
Percentage
Increase
East Park District Maintenance
Facility Community Services $5,800,000 $1,200,000 21%
Southridge Golf Course Irrigation
System Replacement Community Services $5,000,000 $1,200,000 24%
Linden Street PDT $3,861,000 $500,000 13%
South Timberline Corridor PDT $8,723,228 $2,148,000 25%
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection PDT $28,723,630 $1,380,000 5%
Electric transformer replacement
program Utilities $792,811 $1,432,000 181%
Grand Total To-Date $52,900,669 $7,860,000 14.8%
Page 296 of 309
More Project Impacts are Expected 13
Inflation: Appropriated Projects Anticipating Inflation Impact
Project Description Service Area Current
Budget Contract Type Project Phase Impact of Inflation
Buckinghorse Neighborhood Park Community
Services $ 3,181,495 CM/GC Breaking Ground end of June 2022.Anticipating cost overruns that will be addressed during the 2023/24 budget process. Will
also explore scope changes and value engineering.
Carnegie Center Renovation Community
Services $ 4,845,820 CM/GC Design near 20% and CM/GC Contractor
on board.
Project costs rose, creating a shortfall, but the City was able to fill in the gap with grant
funding.
Southeast Recreation/Community Center Community
Services $ 17,561,000 CM/GC
Working to determine final site location
and overall budget. Anticipating to post
design RFP this fall of 2022.
Anticipating cost overrun of about $15 million beyond 2023/24 budget request, due in
large part to scope changes. Final project cost dependent on stakeholder partnerships.
Laporte Bridges PDT $ 2,799,472 CM/GC
CM/GC Contract in place. Currently
providing preconstruction services at 60%
Design Documents.
Anticipated funding need of $2.8 million addressed through 2023/24 bridge program
budget offers.
College and Trilby PDT $ 10,658,706 CM/GC Draft RFP for CM/GC and 60% Design
Documents.
Assumes Community Project grant funding. Anticipated funding need could be addressed
with $3.8 million request from the general fund and $2 million from CCIP -Arterial
Intersection funds in 2023/24 budget process.
Laporte Corridor PDT $ 3,127,500 Undetermined Design near 30% Design Documents.Anticipated funding need addressed by $1.6 million general fund request in 2023/24
budget process.
Siphon Bicycle/Pedestrian Overpass PDT $ 4,805,050 Design/ Bid/ Build 30% Schematic Design Documents
Pending 2023/24 MMOF grant award of $450,000. Anticipated funding need could be
addressed by $450,000 request from the general fund and $600,000 from CCIP -Grade
Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing funds in 2023/24 budget process.
Operations Services: Facilities Major/Minor
Repair & Replacement IES $ 3,840,484 Various Various Stages Some repairs/replacements may be delayed until next year. Funding gap reflected in
2023/24 enhancement offer.
Streetlight Replacement Utilities $ 1,056,000 Performed In-House Ongoing LED conversion program may be extended.
Water Production Replacement Program
(SCADA)Utilities $ 515,000 T&M-Fixed Pricing Ongoing Minor projects may be delayed.
Water Distribution System Replacement Utilities $ 1,000,000 T&M -Fixed Pricing Ongoing Reduction in pipe replaced in annual program.
Water Meter Replacement Utilities $ 850,000 Performed In-House Ongoing Meters may stay in service beyond normal cycle.
Water Reclamation Replacement Utilities $ 1,000,000 T&M+ Mark-Up -Fixed
Pricing Ongoing Minor projects may be delayed.
Wastewater Collection System
Replacement program Utilities $ 1,750,000 T&M+ Mark-Up -Fixed
Pricing Ongoing Reduction in pipe replaced in annual program.
Cured in Place Pipe program Utilities $ 750,000 T&M -Fixed Pricing Ongoing Reduction in pipe lined in annual program.
Grand Total $ 57,740,527
Page 297 of 309
Impact on 2023/2024 Budget Offers 14
Impact of Inflation on 2023/24
Capital Project Budget Offers
•Inflation has created a high level of
uncertainty.
•Many capital projects requested above
average contingency, often from 15-25%.
•Inflation escalators were built into many
projects, ranging from 6% to 31%.
•Some offers anticipate incorporating
scope changes and value engineering to
counter funding shortfalls.
2023/2024 Capital Project Budget Offers Impacted by Inflation
Service Area Offer Name Offer Total
2023
Offer Total
2024
Community Services Recreational Trail Development $2,495,510 $771,838
Community Services Neighborhood Park Development $3,777,107 $3,802,609
Community Services Community Park Development $757,026 $110,744
Community Services Build Community Garden in Traverse Park $140,000 $0
Community Services 9/11 Memorial at Spring Park $300,000 $0
Community Services CCIP -Southeast Community Center Construction $15,201,000 $0
Judicial Services Municipal Court Services -Court Remodel Option 1 $13,000,000 $0
Judicial Services Municipal Court Services -Court Remodel Option 2 $21,000,000 $0
PDT
Power Trail at Harmony Road Grade-Separated Crossing and Trail Extension
(Design and Construction)$4,400,000 $0
PDT Downtown Quiet Zone -Design of Wayside Horns $500,000 $0
PDT Siphon Bicycle/Pedestrian Overpass (Construction)$1,500,000 $0
PDT College and Trilby Intersection Improvements (Construction)$3,870,000 $1,800,000
PDT Turnberry Road and Suniga Road Extensions (30% Design)$300,000 $0
PDT Laporte Avenue Corridor Improvements (Construction)$0 $1,572,500
PDT Automated Wash Bay Facility Construction $2,710,000 $0
PDT Hoffman Mill Scale House Renovation $250,000 $0
PDT Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) System Upgrades $3,570,000 $0
Utility Services Landfill Groundwater Remediation IGA $650,000 $100,000
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -Grid Integrated Water Heater Installations $193,000 $655,000
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -Direct Install Demand Response T-stat Replacement $119,000 $185,000
Utility Services Environmental Learning Center Flow Restoration Project $2,089,196 $0
Utility Services
Utilities: Light & Power -Land Acquisition for New Electric Substation serving
Northeast Fort Collins $1,085,000 $0
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -New Electric Substation serving Northeast Fort Collins $300,000 $7,876,000
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -Circuit 638 Extension and Circuit 608 Contingency $465,000 $0
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -Install Circuit 628 $0 $1,730,000
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -Utility Network Migration & ADMS Enhancements $830,000 $250,000
Utility Services Utilities: Light & Power -Cable Handling Facility for Cut-To-Length Program $0 $1,551,472
Utility Services
Utilities: Light & Power -System Relocations Due to Road, Intersection and Alley
Improvements $400,000 $400,000
Grand Total $79,901,839 $20,805,163
Page 298 of 309
Impact on 2023/2024 Budget Offers 15
Impact of Inflation on Asset
Management Budget Offers
•Many ongoing asset management offers are
insufficient to meet City needs. Enhancement
offers were submitted to achieve desired
replacement cycles and level of service.
•In some cases, offers anticipate lowering the
level of service if additional funds are not
available.
•Specific items are subject to large price
increases: HVAC equipment between 25% to
300%, traffic signal poles by 90% this year.
•Many offers have a 10-15% cost escalator
built in. Some have another 10-15%
contingency on top of current pricing.
•Inflation, sometimes compounded by deferred
maintenance, was a factor in about 75 asset
management and enhancement offers
•Long lead times for certain equipment have
added another layer of volatility to the mix. Items
that previously were available within a few weeks
or a month may take 35 to 60 weeks. This is
especially an issue with older buildings and
systems at the end of their useful life.
Utility Services, $88.M
Planning, Dev &
Transportation, $63.1M
Information & Employee
Svcs, $49.3M
Community Services,
$10.6M
Police Services, $4.9M
2023/2024 Asset Management and Enhancement Offers Impacted by Inflation
Page 299 of 309
The Other Side of the Equation: Higher Revenues 16
Increased Sales Tax
•Inflation is almost always
adding to the cost of goods –
and increasing sales tax
revenues at the same time.
•Each month builds on the
inflation increase of the month
before.
•Since May 2021, inflation has
added about $5.5 million to
the City’s sales tax revenues.
4%
96%
Of the $145.6M in sales tax collected
from June 2021 to May 2022, about
$5.5M or 4% can be attributed to
inflation.
Amount Attributable to Inflation
Regular Sales Tax Receipts
Inflation Increases Sales Tax
Collections Over Time
Month CPI %
Change
Compounded
Sales Tax Receipts
Attributable to
Inflation
June 2021 0.9%$101,474
July 2021 0.5%$176,142
August 2021 0.2%$181,913
September 2021 0.3%$236,912
October 2021 0.8%$341,965
November 2021 0.5%$382,878
December 2021 0.3%$391,477
January 2022 0.8%$655,559
February 2022 0.9%$549,860
March 2022 1.3%$651,070
April 2022 0.6%$899,097
May 2022 1.1%$935,185
Change May 2021-May 2022 8.6%$5,503,532
Page 300 of 309
The Other Side of the Equation: Higher Revenues
•The Federal Reserve has raised the
interest rate to combat inflation:
17
Rising Interest Rates
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22
City of Fort Collins Investment
Rate of Return vs. Market Rates
Fixed Income Rate of Return LGIP Rate of Return
5-year Treasury Bill Money Market Deposit Rate
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City of Fort Collins Historical
Investment Rate of Return vs. Treasury Rates
City Portfolio Rate of Return 5-year Treasury Bill
March 17 25 basis points
May 5 50 basis points
June 16 75 basis points
•Over time, this will lead to a higher yield on
investments. The City’s Local Government
Investment Pool (LGIP) responds to
changing market conditions more quickly
than the rest of the portfolio.
•Interest rate hikes this year have contributed
to interest income that is 23% higher than
budgeted year-to-date.
Page 301 of 309
Anticipating Future Impacts
•Right-of-Way costs may stabilize
as rising interest rates cool the
housing market.
•Over the next five years, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
(BIL) may increase inflation
pressures in the construction
industry, as local governments
will be awarded funding and will
bid their projects on the same
timeline.
Source: “The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Will Deliver for
Colorado”, US Department of Transportation, April 11,
2022, retrieved from
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law-will-deliver-colorado on 6/10/2022.
18
Formula Based Funding Colorado Expects to Receive from the BIL
Program Amount (CO)Notes
Federal Highway Formula Funding for Roads and Bridges $4 Billion 29% increase
Formula Funding to reduce transportation related emissions $86 million
Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-
saving Transportation (PROTECT) Program (Formula Based)$98 million New
FAST Act Transit Funding $950 million 29% increase
New and Expanded Competitive Grant Programs Included in the BIL
Program Amount
(National)Notes
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) competitive grants for nationally
significant bridges and other bridges $15.77 Billion New
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
Grants $15 Billion Expanded
Safe Streets for All $6 Billion New
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant $14 Billion Expanded
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Low and No Emission Bus
Programs $5.6 Billion Expanded
FTA Buses + Bus Facilities Competitive Program $2 Billion Expanded
Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program for high-capacity transit $23 Billion Expanded
MEGA Projects $15 Billion New
Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-
saving Transportation (PROTECT) Program (Competitive)$1.4 Billion New
FTA All Station Accessibility Program $1.75 Billion New
Charging and fueling infrastructure discretionary grants $2.5 Billion New
FHWA Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects $1.78 Billion Expanded
Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART)
Grant Program $1 Billion New
Page 302 of 309
19Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Cost Mitigation Techniques
•Selection of project delivery methods
•Effective project management
•Competition
•Design, value engineering, and
alternative materials
•Project scheduling and phasing
•Expedite material purchased to lock-in
pricing
•Avoid change orders
Headwinds
•Unprecedented inflation
•Material constraints & lead-time
•Tight contractor and labor market
Page 303 of 309
20Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Design/Bid/Build (DBB)
•Traditional method for delivering capital projects
•Sequential process with design completed by City or
Consultant based on time & materials
• Construction bid awarded to lowest responsive and
responsible Contractor
•Construction contractor “owns” delivery including risk
•City “owns” design
Advantages
• Design consultant selection primarily based on
qualifications
•City maintains control of design
•Market based selection of construction contractors
with competitive pricing
•Firm-fixed price construction contract
Limitations
•No contractor input during design may negatively
impact cost
•Linear process may extend time
•Low bid may lead to delays, poor quality, and other
adverse outcomes
•Changes in scope subject to change orders
Examples
•Timberline Underpass for Trail System
• Siphon Overpass for Trail System
•Concrete Maintenance Phases I, II, III
• Transfort Bus Stop Upgrades
Page 304 of 309
21Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)
•Design completed by City or Consultant based on time &
materials
• Construction contractor contracted early in the design
process (~30%)
•Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) established at ~90%
design
•Competitively quote materials and subcontracts &
Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)
•Construction contractor “owns” delivery including risk
•City “owns” design
Advantages
•Early construction contractor involvement –definitive input
can have positive impact
• Design consultant selection primarily based on qualifications
•City maintains control of design
• Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) & open book negotiations
• Lump sum & unit price-based pricing
Limitations
•Price risk due to single source construction
contract negotiations
•Requires trust between City, consultant, and
construction contractor
•Innovation can add or reduce cost and/or
time
Examples
•Utilities Administration Building – 222
Laporte Ave.
•Police Training Center
•College and Trilby Intersection
•Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection
Page 305 of 309
22Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Alternative Project Delivery System (APDS)
•Design completed by City or Consultant based on
time & materials
• Construction contractor contracted as early as the
concept and alternative evaluation phases
• Price estimating, constructability, value engineering,
scheduling, phasing, risk analysis
•Competitively quote materials and subcontracts &
Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)
Advantages
•Early construction contractor involvement
•Constructability, alternative solutions, value
engineering, cost avoidance
•Identify risks and methods or solutions to mitigate
risk during design
Limitations
•City assumes primary risk for unforeseen and/or
unanticipated conditions
•Time and materials plus a fixed fee percentage
mark-up
•No Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
•Federally funded contracts prohibit cost plus
contracts
Examples
•Michigan Ditch
• Poudre River Pipeline
Page 306 of 309
Distinguishing Factors Design/Bid/Build CM/GC Design/Build APDS
Early Supplier Involvement X X X
Complexity & Innovation X X X
City "Owned" Design Risk X X X
City "Owned" Construction Risk X
Construction Contractor Selection Primarily
Price Based X
Firm-Fixed Price Cost X
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) X X
Open Book Financials X X X
23Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
Page 307 of 309
24Mitigation Techniques
Budget Reserve for Inflation
•Staff has made a General Fund reserve assignment in the amount of $4.0M
•Effectively, this withholds this amount from use in the 2023-2024 budget
•The balance can be utilized by Council at any time and for any governmental purpose
•Provides a cushion of approximately 2% of annual governmental expenditures
•Year-end 2021 Fund Balances (reserves) will be reviewed with the Finance Committee at its
September 1, 2022 meeting, coinciding with delivery of the Recommended Budget on
September 2.
Page 308 of 309
•What questions does Council Finance Committee have regarding the impact of inflation on
capital projects?
•What questions does Council Finance Committee have regarding methods of procurement
and project delivery?
25Council Finance Committee Considerations
Page 309 of 309