HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 08/20/2018 -
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
August 20, 2018
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the July 16P
th
P Council Finance Committee Meeting.
1. Metro District Requests - 3 60 minutes J. Birks
2. Fee Review - Utilities Wet PIFs, Step II CEFs 30 minutes L. Smith
J. Poznanovic
3. HR Benefits Discussion 30 minutes T. Roche
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2018
RVSD 08/14/18 mnb
Aug 20th
Metro District Requests - 3 60 min J. Birks
Fee Review – Utilities Wet PIFs, Step II CEFs 30 min L. Smith
J. Poznanovic
HR Benefits Discussion 30 min T. Roche
Sep 5th
Auditor Vendor Selection 2 hrs T. Storin
Sep 17th
Fee Review – Fee Team Report, Total Impact 30 min T. Leeson
J. Poznanovic
Internet Sales Tax – Work Plan 15 min J. Poznanovic
Regional Road Fee & PSD PILOs Update 20 min G. Sawyer
Year End Adjustment Ordinance 20 min L. Pollack
Oct 15th
Utility Rate Increases 20 min L. Smith
Infrastructure Financing 30 min T. Storin
Nov 19th
GERP Review 15 min J. Voss
Financial Management Policy Review 45 min J. Voss
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Revenue Contingency Plan Review
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
07/16/18
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell (via phone), Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Kelly DiMartino, Laurie Kadrich, Jackie Thiel,
Travis Storin, John Voss, Jennifer Poznanovic, Jennifer Selenske, Victoria Shaw,
Honore Depew, John Duval, Joe Wimmer, Andres Gavaldon, Katie Ricketts, Jo
Cech, Zack Mozer
Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Jim Burke, Assurance Senior Manager, RSM US LLP
Gavin Kaszynski, CFO Associates in Family Medicine
Dale Adamy (R1ST.org)
Meeting called to order at 10:10 am by Ross Cunniff
Minutes approval for the June 18, 2018 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ken Summers made a
motion to approve the minutes and Ross Cunniff seconded the motion. The minutes from the June 18P
th
P
Council Finance Committee meeting were approved unanimously.
A. Audit Results Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Jim Burke, Assurance Senior Manager, RSM US LLP
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Independent Auditors’ Report on 2017 Financial Statements
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Major Federal Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RSM will be presenting the Report to the City Council. This report covers the audit of the basic financial
statements and compliance of the City of Fort Collins for year-end December 31, 2017.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff seeks input on areas of priority or concern, other than those established in this Report to the City
Council, for matters of recordkeeping and/or the City’s internal control environment.
2
Otherwise there are no specific questions to be answered as this is a 2017 year-end report.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Every year the City is required to be audited in compliance with Government Auditing Standards. RSM
finalized its financial statement audit and compliance report on June 19, 2018 and the firm is required
to report the results of the audit to those charged with governance.
There were no findings identified related to Federal grants in the Compliance Report. Financial
misstatements identified by the auditors that were deemed immaterial for adjustment and control
deficiencies identified by the auditors can be found in the Report to the City Council, Exhibit A. Staff
will provide a written response to the audit findings and misstatements at the October Council Finance
Committee meeting.
Jim Burke, Assurance Senior Manager, RSM US LLP; CAFR review - no significant issues during audit
Internal Control item wasn’t required to be in writing, but the Finance team requested it
For reference;
Material Weakness is the most serious
Significant Deficiency should be communicated in writing
Control Deficiency can be put in writing at their request - reconciling cash accounts /credit card
receipts
Mike Beckstead; this is the cleanest audit we have had in my tenure -the last 7 years - we have seen
improvement year over year - we asked them to document this in writing as we want to be exceptionally
transparent.
Ken Summers; status of pages 3-5 - have these adjustments been made? Do they have a significant
impact? Net position at the end of the fiscal year
Travis Storin; they are past adjustments which were not booked - on page 4 at the bottom - $1M -this
is primarily due to the policy which has been to not record capitalized interest on ongoing capital
projects - would still be considered a non-material amount to the CAFR
Ken Summer; it is helpful to have that understanding - net position - no issues
Travis Storin; we looked at this in peer cities and we have deliberately adopted as a matter of
administrative convenience as it would be quite time consuming and doesn’t have an impact on our
liquidity. This is very common among cities - GASB is working on a statement which should be coming
out soon to reflect what everyone is already doing.
Ross Cunniff; congratulations to the team on the cleanest audit in 5 years - keep it going – a great job
for the community taxpayers.
3
Mike Beckstead; the team has worked hard to resolve / clean up previous issues.
B. 2017 Fund Balance Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
John Voss, Controller
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Status of Fund Balances and Working Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached presentation gives a status of fund balances and working capital. Fund balances are
primarily considered for funding one-time offers during the Budgeting for Outcomes process. To a
lesser extent, available monies are also used to fund supplemental appropriations between BFO cycles.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, this is an update for Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
To aid in answering the question of what funding is available to support emerging issues and initiatives
in the next budget cycle. In each fund the balances are shown vertically by the accounting
classifications. The amounts are then additionally categorized into Appropriated, Available with
Constraints, and Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances established by
policy, funds from the 2017 balance that have been appropriated in 2018 and amounts for projects
specifically identified by voters. An example of the later is Community Capital Improvements Plan (aka
BOB 2.0).
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined
constraints. An example is 4P
th
P of July donations. They are restricted for that purpose, but still
available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the discretion of
the City Council.
4
5
6
7
Ken Summers; is the Southridge Golf Irrigation an upgrade or repairs?
Mike Beckstead; piece of a replacement project which is estimated in the $2M range - Collindale and
Southridge Golf Courses both need to be replaced. They have some debt service that retires in 2020
which will give them capacity to borrow funds for that project.
Darin Atteberry; we inherited Southridge - we took over that facility and it has been a challenge from a
facilities standpoint.
John Voss; Affordable Housing Land Bank from .3 to 1.3M due to a property we sold for approximately
$1M. We got cash in the $900K range which we added to the Affordable Housing Lane Bank.
Mike Beckstead; 2017 Column - first non-spendable $4.9M - that is non-cash - that is a loan that was
made out of the General Fund to the Summit Project. Between the Policy 60-day minimum fund
balance and the TABOR emergency fund requirement at state level - $32M reserves are included in the
balance. In compliance with our Reserve Policy and the TABOR policy we don’t touch that.
8
In middle of Assigned - Recession Contingency was set that up last year - we have left it there – we
have replenished it as we used $1M of that in 2018 – the intent is to go in 2019-2020 with this
contingency so if there is a slowdown it can be used a cushion.
ACTION: Ross Cunniff; Please change Recession Contingency to Revenue Contingency / Shortfall.
9
KFCG consists of 6 restricted buckets
10
Transportation Fund balance went down by approximately $2M
Capital Projects of $1.4M
Harmony Road - state gave us $13.5M when we took over maintenance and ownership which
we used to get it up to city standards - not legally binding that we can’t use it - $5.7M is mostly
interest
Darin Atteberry: Harmony was originally built as a rural State Highway - the $13M has helped
significantly.
Ross Cunniff; have we contemplated ownership transfer on any of the other State Highways?
(Mulberry, 392, 287, 14)
Laurie Kadrich; there were some brief discussions regarding Prospect Road and interchange but
nothing beyond that.
Ross Cunniff; I would like to recommend we roll the balance over to the BOB2 Project Fund to continue
to build that kind of capital.
Mike Beckstead; we set up a separate fund for BOB2 CCIP. It will take Council action to move that over
but we can certainly bring that forward.
Ross Cunniff; reasoning - BOB 2 projects float up and down and helps maintain our trust with the
community, so they know that even the interest is going to be used for the designated purpose.
11
Mike Beckstead; takeaway is that our fund balances are healthy and stable. We have good reserves
and are in a good position.
Ken Summers; When you look at the Water Funds for example, the available balance is somewhat low
compared to what has been available in prior years. What rebuilds the fund balance?
Mike Beckstead; for the Water Fund specifically, with the change in Cash in Lieu contributions at the
end of 2017 - this year we are about $1.6M under budget in those - that spurred an influx in our 2017
year end fund balance. Beyond that - plant improvement fees coming in, capital projects coming out.
L&P has an anticipated rate increase in 2019 and 2020 which will increase operating income and
restore the fund balance - it is about as low as we want it to be so it is time to bring it back up.
Darin Atteberry; for context, about 15-18 years ago, we were concerned about the deregulation of the
electric utility - that L&P reserve was built very intentionally. The Water Fund includes Halligan which
won’t be enough because that project has been delayed multiple times. There are stories behind each
one of these items. To Ross’ comment - the reserves are appropriate and are intentionally not too
high.
Ken Summers; pretty heavy commitments for some of the fund balances - addressing needs - keeping
infrastructure what it needs to be and make sure those capital projects are on track.
Mayor Troxell; good report - thank you
12
C. Regional Wasteshed Project
Honore Depew, Environmental Planner, Sustainability Services
Jackie Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council reviewed recommendations for new solid waste infrastructure and
policy during a May work session and gave direction for staff to draft an intergovernmental agreement
(IGA)with Larimer County, which would formalize the recommendations, and requested additional
analysis. Council will be discussing the IGA outline and reviewing impact analysis during a work session
on August 14.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee have feedback on the financial aspects of the project?
2. Does Council Finance Committee need additional information as Council moves towards
consideration of an Intergovernmental Agreement and ordinance?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
History of Council Involvement
Staff provided updates on this project to City Council at a regular meeting in January 2017, a Futures
Committee meeting in April 2017, and at work sessions in January and May of 2018. In addition, Fort
Collins City Council is represented on the Policy Advisory Committee of the Wasteshed Coalition by
Mayor Troxell and Councilmember Cunniff.
Wasteshed Coalition Background
Because the Larimer County Landfill is forecast to reach capacity by 2025, staff and elected officials
from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, Larimer County, and the Town of Estes Park formed the
North Front Range Wasteshed Coalition in 2015 to plan for the future of waste material handling in the
region. Recommendations in the Solid Waste Infrastructure Master Plan (SWIMP) are the culmination
of more than two years of work by the Coalition.
In 2017, Larimer County engaged the consulting firm HDR, Inc. to provide:
• detailed reporting of current regional solid waste volumes and future projections
• consideration of emerging technologies for resource recovery
• triple-bottom line and market analysis of infrastructure options
• example agreements and policies to support new facilities
Eleven possible solid waste infrastructure options were identified as potential pieces of a long-term
waste material management system, once the Larimer County Landfill is closed. Each element has
been closely reviewed by the Coalition and will be published in June 2018 as a Solid Waste
Infrastructure Master Plan.
Coalition Recommendations
13
Five new facilities were selected for recommendations based on capital costs, timeframe to complete,
cost-benefit ratio, and projected tipping fees:
Recommended Facilities Capital Cost Tip Fee* Years to Build
New County Landfill $11.7M $14 6
Central Transfer Station $15.8M $29 5
Yard Waste Composting Facility
$11.8M
$38 4
Food Waste Composting Facility $38 2
Construction and Demolition (C&D)
Debris Processing Facility
$13.7M $37 4
*Estimated tip fees in 2017 dollars
Locations
All of the proposed facilities except a new landfill could be co-located in the undeveloped section of
the current Larimer County landfill site on South Taft Hill Rd. A modern, sanitary landfill could be
developed on a section of land owned by the County north of Wellington and would predominantly
accept trash from the Central Transfer Station (including landfill waste from Fort Collins). The Transfer
Station would provide the same or more convenience to customers with a redesigned entry point and
traffic control.
Capital Cost
Most of the capital investment needed for the recommended facilities would come from an existing
fund balance Larimer County has accumulated for infrastructure replacement, with the remainder
being financed by the County. Because the Solid Waste Division is operated as an enterprise fund, no
tax revenue is included in these projections and there is no expectation of municipal financial
investment.
Facility Construction Timeline
One of the primary goals adopted by the Coalition is to have replacement facilities operational before
the Larimer County landfill stops accepting waste in 2025. The projected development schedule for the
new facilities includes design, permitting, and construction.
Supportive Policy: Process Controls
The Coalition is recommending several process controls to be implemented throughout the
Wasteshed. A solid waste process control is a rule that governs the way waste materials may be
collected, handled, or disposed. The recommended process controls are in alignment with adopted
goals for increased diversion, are anticipated to drive economic development in the region, and are
designed to support the financial viability of new facilities. The proposed process controls are:
1) Flow Control for Construction and Demolition Debris
a. All mixed waste from building projects over 1,000sf must be sent to a County-owned
processing facility.
14
2) Flow Control for Single-Stream Recyclables
a. Residential and business recycling must be sent to a County-owned recycling transfer or
recovery facility.
3) Waste Stream Ban on Yard Trimmings
a. Green waste such as branches, leaves, and grass clippings must not be sent to landfills.
Intergovernmental Agreement
To facilitate implementation of the recommended infrastructure and policy, an intergovernmental
agreement is needed that would likely include the following elements:
• County commits to finance and construct facilities
• Municipalities commit to adopt rules for waste handling
• Coordinated data collection and education
• Formation of an Advisory Board
Summary
Unprecedented regional collaboration for solid waste planning, spurred by the Larimer County Landfill
nearing capacity, has yielded a recommended infrastructure master plan to divert significant waste
from landfills without capital investment needed from the City of Fort Collins. To support this project,
the role of municipalities in the region is to adopt specific policies that would ensure the economic
viability of County-built resource recovery facilities. The proposed facilities are projected to recover as
much as 40% of what is currently landfilled in the Wasteshed, delivering useable products back into the
regional economy and helping Fort Collins meet its goals for Zero Waste.
residents.
15
Discussion / Next Steps;
Ken Summers; what is the anticipated life for the new facility?
Honore Depew; It will be developed in phases - Phase 1; build out for the first cell 20 years - ample
opportunity to expand to over a 100 year life span - the timeline brings these new facilities on line
around 2025
Ken Summers; developing other strategies to deal with waste as other technologies arise - how that
would impact the new facility?
Ross Cunniff; where the $11M of existing equity came from?
Honore Depew; there is approximately $40M of existing equity – because the Larimer County Solid
Waste Division t is run as an enterprise fund – it is based on tipping fees or the cost of disposal and it
has been managed in such a way over the last few decades to accumulate this fund balance. There is
money is trash and they have been making money taking waste and burying it in the ground.
We have the opportunity to look forward without a resource constraint.
Ross Cunniff; the county has had the foresight to look forward and they have been collecting over and
above the operational requirements to fund this.
Honore Depew; Yes, and it still has some of the lowest tipping fees in the country.
Honore Depew; Food Waster Composting - currently grocers send their material to Denver for
composting to comply with City Code.
Jackie Thiel; the biggest obstacle was regional infrastructure which is the reason we haven’t been
handling our local food waste. The new facility will enable us to handle that and gain that efficiency of
scale.
Honore Depew; The construction and demolition debris processing facility will be the highest caliber in
the state - the new facility will be state of the art using the same separation you see used in a single
stream facility. Separation mechanism will be dialed in to target materials such as metal, wood and
concrete - this is a great desire of the building industry community - currently they are required to have
multiple roll off dumpsters on site to separate those readily recyclable materials. This would provide a
high level of convenience to be able to consolidate that.
16
Estimated Tipping Fees / per ton
$22 per ton - new rate of $30 per ton for trash
Resource recovery options are more expensive than burying trash in the ground.
Mayor Troxell; where does our waste water and waste energy effort and our investment there -
How does that relate to our overall picture as it relates to our wasteshed?
17
Honore Depew: We worked closely with our consultant and the technical advisory committee and our
colleagues who operated the waste treatment plant - Drake Water facility has the capacity and could
scale up cogeneration of electricity from that however, the key linkage is a pre-processing facility –
something that could take raw food waste - maybe de-package it – construction of that plus upgrading
the wastewater facility to be able to receive that material in bulk proved to be very expensive
compared to the other options – it is still included in the master plan as a Tier 2 option - at this time
that option wasn’t recommended by the coalition for the Tier 1 stage.
Mayor Troxell; Governance and oversight going forward - the proposal as it stands right now -
operating the go forward facility the same way we have always done that basically Larimer County
gives the operator and the municipalities do the policy stuff - there are different levels of our
involvement between the cities and the county- I would like more of a shared governance model that
comes out of this and I do recognize that the county has the resources - because of that they have
tended to make the rules.
Honore Depew; reflecting our discussions on this piece - the county is prepared to talk with you on
Friday about their approach to developing a governance strategy - they are interested in keeping
authority over the operation of this enterprise fund and the assets - however the proposal is for a
strong Wasteshed Advisory Board which would be modeled after the Open Space Advisory Board that
the county formed and that Councilmember Horak sits on. Some of the roles of that board would have
a forum - direct influence on the master plan implementation, performance review of the overall
system, policy development and the future design / expansion of wasteshed infrastructure. We would
be putting this kind of language into the draft IGA.
Mayor Troxell; One thing I would like to suggest as we work on the IGA regarding waste energy - we
become more a full partner - Tier 1 and Tier 2 gives the waste energy as a first-class citizen in the
agreement between the partners as it related to going forward.
Jackie Thiel; we can share that with the county prior to the meeting on Friday - they will want to
discuss with the pact about what that language might look like.
Mayor Troxell; to make the Council Finance Committee aware, a letter has been drafted that speaks to
concerns that Ross and I have as being members of the policy group – the 11P
th
P hour introduction of a
3P
rd
P party to do the landfill really needs to reassess all options that brought us to this point in the first
place.
Ross Cunniff; I am almost done reviewing the letter and I have some minor changes from my side.
Dovetailing on a couple of your other points; with respect to our bio digestor at the waste water plant
currently we say that people can put nonfat waste down their garbage disposals - our current
recommendation - want to make sure that no flow control items that would come up in the IGA would
preclude that recommendation.
18
And on the governance side - the day to day operations and those costs - I understand that the county
wants to have a high level of control, but my big concern is the policy and future flow control, future
mandates on the city. We need to have an active voice in yes or no that is binding in some degree on
policy requirements that would be placed on the municipalities within the county.
Honore Depew; in consulting with the legal teams, we have learned that with the Home Rule - the
county could not impose these on the cities. Would have to be developed in concert and partnership.
Jackie Thiel; thinking of our work session last week with the county around behavioral health.
We will connect Todd and Lori as leads for the county in thinking through what are some of these other
alternative governance models might look like understanding that we want a greater stake - not just
advisory.
Darin Atteberry; the importance of our goals and objectives as a city in this area - this is so critical to us
moving forward - it would not be good to have our role be of an advisory nature - we should take a
position of equal partnership and decision making. (Airport and Open Spaces as examples)
Ross Cunniff; what is our ownership stake in the current landfill?
Honore Depew; we own 50% of the souterrain underground of the first development based on a 1970
agreement; Fort Collins 50%, Loveland 25% and the County 25%. The county bought a large section of
land going down to Trilby which they own outright, and they also own all development above ground
The Enterprise (County Enterprise Fund) owns new land - Solid Waste Division of Larimer County.
Darin Atteberry; it is very important for the city to maintain an ownership stake but also decision
making.
Honore Depew; worth noting from staff level - we see 2 pieces that are closely linked but have
distinctive oversight roles; 1) Infrastructure Development 2) Policy. In the arrangement that has been
developed over the last couple of years. Big new infrastructure that we wouldn’t pay for ourselves
gets on line that provides an opportunity for Fort Collins to have more options around policy in the
future for collection of organics in particular. This would set us up for that sort of future.
Darin Atteberry; transfer stations - have you gotten to the point of talking about one location or
multiple locations?
Honore Depew; the South Taft Hill Road location is ideal because 75% of the population lives within 15
miles of it.
Ross Cunniff; Our current haulers business models are based on transportation to that facility.
19
Ross Cunniff; there is a provision if the new facility is built that Wellington and parts north would be
able to take directly to that facility - wrinkle that needs to be figured out with this alternative of private
operations.
Darin Atteberry; small detail - several years ago the county eliminated Sunday hours due to budget
cuts. A transfer station which would require less on-site staffing - the idea of being open on Sunday
hours would be a plus from a customer service standpoint.
Honore Depew; convenience for greenway drop off on Sunday as well - nontrash part.
Ken Summers; I like the aspect where the county pays for it - in terms of the operational aspect of it
moving forward the public education piece of it in terms of what Ross was saying in terms of the waste
stream - as we look at reduced or zero waste there are some real significant public education needs-
people are more than willing to do what they can do if they know what to do.
In terms of timeline, the current landfill is scheduled to be at capacity / sunset in 2025 -
Can some of these strategies be fast tracked - perhaps the life of the current landfill could be extended
if we get some of the other waste diverted?
Meeting adjourned at 11:24 am
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Patrick Rowe and Tom Leeson
Date: August 20, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Preview of Proposed Metro Districts at Waters’ Edge Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waters’ Edge Development has submitted a Metro District Service Plan to support a proposed
development of approximately 848 homes and up to 70,000 sq ft of commercial space in the
form of a neighborhood center (“Project”). The Project is generally located between Douglas
Road and Richards Lake Road on either side of Turnberry Road. The project is targeted toward
the 55 year and older population with an age in place development philosophy focused on
allowing its residents to remain in their homes as long as possible. The applicant proposes to
utilize metro districts to significantly reduce treated water usage, provide enhanced parks and
open space, rehabilitate the Windsor No. 8 ditch, and to provide other lifestyle amenities to its
residents.
The presentation will provide an overview of the proposed metro district and highlight staff’s
pending review of the proposal.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information would the committee like to evaluate the proposed Metro
District to support the Water’s Edge project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The developer of the Project is evaluating a multi-phase 235-acre development in Fort Collins,
generally located between Douglas Road and Richards Lake Road on either side of Turnberry
Road (Attachment 1 – Location Map). The project plans to construct approximately 848 homes
with a product type tailored to a population that is 55 years and older (single-level, senior-
friendly home design). Additionally, the project is proposed to include a future neighborhood
commercial center, which could include up to 70,000 sq ft in commercial/retail space. The
Project proposes a metro district to provide and operate a non-potable water system, provide
enhanced parks and open space, to rehabilitate the Windsor No. 8 ditch, and to provide other
lifestyle amenities to its residents (namely, three planned community facilities: artisan workshop
and inventors center, sustainability center, and a senior activity center).
The information provided below presents key aspects of the metro district proposal and
highlights the review steps that are pending by City staff. Though staff’s review is pending, the
following preliminary review is offered as initial feedback:
Reduce/Eliminate Planned Community Facilities (Artisan Workshop/Innovation
Center, Sustainability Center, and Senior Activity Center) – Staff understands the
applicants position that the proposed community facilities are critical to provide the
social connections that are important to a healthy senior lifestyle. However, as described,
the proposed community facilities do not deliver on the Policy Objectives specified by
the revised Metropolitan District Policy that will be considered by City Council on
August 21, 2018.
Include 10% or More Affordable Housing – Staff would suggest the Developer
consider including affordable housing options in its proposal (the City defines affordable
housing as 10% or more of the units in a development being affordable to residents at
80% area median income, or lower).
Explore Enhanced Building Standards – Explore enhanced building standards for
water/energy conservation outcomes.
Metro District Proposal
The developer has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Waters’ Edge Metropolitan
District Nos. 1-5 (“Service Plan”). The Metro District will be used to finance, construct, and
operate public infrastructure, and other site costs that reduce overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of multi-district service plan consisting of five (5) districts
to deliver the proposed Project. The development is phased over time with an anticipated build
out in 2027.
Service Plan Highlights:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $43 million in 2028 (the first year of
full value after build-out)
Aggregate Mill Levy – 50 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 to 50 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan
or intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public
benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 10 Mills
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $45,000,000 to cover a total of
$98,512,577 in estimated costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation
and/or stormwater improvements
Public Improvements
The Service Plan provides for the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $45 million to
fund a portion of the potential $98,512,577 in identified public improvements, as specified by
Exhibit H of the Service Plan. The following is a summary list of the potential public
improvements by development phase:
UPhase I
Non-Potable Water System – Approximately $3.1 million for a non-potable water
system. This system will be owned and operated by the metro district.
Artisan Workshop/Inventors Center – Approximately $3.5 million to finance and
construct an artisan workshop and inventor’s center community facility. This facility will
be owned and operated by the metro district and will be available for use by the general
public in addition to district residents.
Sustainability Center – Approximately $1.5 million to finance and construct a
sustainability center. This facility will be owned and operated by the metro district and
will be available for use by the general public in addition to district residents.
Parks and Open Space Enhancements – Approximately $839,832 in parks and open
space enhancements, including landscaping, site furnishings (benches, public patio areas,
open space arbors, masonry, etc.). These improvements will be owned and maintained
by the metro district.
Basic (Phase I and II) – Up to $18 million in “basic” public improvement costs over
both project phases (Phase I and Phase II). Note: For additional information, see the
below paragraph on Basic Infrastructure.
Administrative, Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs – Approximately $4
million in costs associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering,
inspecting, testing, planning, permitting the construction of the public improvements, and
contingency.
UPhase II
Non-Potable Water System – Approximately $2.6 million for a non-potable water
system in site preparation costs and grading associated with the proposed project
Rehabilitate Windsor No. 8 Ditch – Approximately $2 million to rehabilitate the
Windsor No. 8 ditch which runs along the north half of the proposed second phase.
Senior Activities Center – Approximately $7 million to finance and construct a
sustainability center. This facility will be owned and operated by the metro district and
will be available for use by the general public in addition to district residents.
Parks and Open Space Enhancements – Approximately $839,832 in parks and open
space enhancements, including landscaping, site furnishings (benches, public patio areas,
open space arbors, masonry, etc.). These improvements will be owned and maintained
by the metro district.
Basic (Phase I and II) – Shared across both project phases; refer to Phase I above.
Administrative, Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs – Approximately $6
million in costs associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering,
inspecting, testing, planning, permitting the construction of the public improvements, and
contingency.
Basic Infrastructure
Both the existing and proposed Metropolitan District Policies have a bias against using metro
districts to provide “basic infrastructure”, that which is typically expected to be provided by a
developer (both in type and magnitude), UexceptU where the inclusion of “basic” infrastructure may
be utilized to offset the higher costs of extraordinary development outcomes that cannot directly
be provided by a metro district (e.g., affordable housing, rooftop solar, etc.).
The Developer has requested that the metro districts be permitted to finance $18 million in basic
infrastructure costs. Per the Developer, these basic costs will help to offset a portion of the
higher costs associated in delivering a senior-friendly housing type (stepless entries and
increased costs due to single-level floor plans).
Public Benefits
The proposed new policy requires an interdisciplinary review of the public benefits that will be
enabled by the metro district. As stated above, this review is pending. What follows is a general
list of the public benefits as specified in the Service Plan (additional information can be found in
Exhibit L of the Service Plan):
Significant Reduction of Potable Water – The inclusion of a non-potable water system
will significantly reduce the need for treated water. The Developer estimates the long-
term annual reduction in potable water needs to be approximately 60% less. The
Developer estimates this system to result in significant financial benefits of around
$151K in annual operating cost savings. Additionally, there are unquantified
environmental benefits due to a reduction in water treatment, primarily in electricity
usage.
Enhanced and Expanded Open Space, Parks, and Trails – The development includes
enhanced and expanded open spaces and trails. The Developer represents that there is
twice the open space of a typical development. The Developer proposes that this is a
benefit to the walkability and pedestrian friendliness of the Project, in addition to meeting
the intent of nature and outdoors accessibility (i.e., Nature in the City).
Rehabilitation of the Windsor No. 8 Ditch – As per the Service Plan, the Windsor No.
8 ditch will be significantly rehabilitated in order to improve water quality, provide
habitat for wildlife, act as regional trail connection, and transform an eyesore into an
attractive community amenity.
Delayed Assisted Living – The Developer represents that by creating a senior-friendly
community, through housing design, and development amenities and services, it will
allow seniors to “age in place” and remain out of assisted living facilities for longer. The
Developer suggests that the cost differential between its housing and independent/assisted
living is approximately $3,500 per month (calculated as $6K / mo. for assisted living vs.
$2,500 / mo. for a Waters’ Edge home). Assuming 10% of Waters’ Edge residents are at
an age where in a typical development they would move to an assisted living facility, but
are able to delay that move for 12-24 months, by virtue of the senior-friendly community
and housing design elements at Waters’ Edge, that would carry a value of between $42K
to $84K per individual, or $3.5 million to $7.1 million over the entire development.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues the currently adopted and proposed
policy is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1
Metro District Policy Comparison
PENDING STAFF REVIEW
Following the review process specified by the revised policy, the applicant’s proposal will be
evaluated and reported on in the following ways:
1. UPublic Benefit Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Scan:U To comprehensively and
consistently evaluate District proposals, an interdisciplinary staff team, inclusive of
representatives from Planning, Economic Health, Sustainability, and other
Departments as appropriate, will be formed. This team will rely on the City’s Triple
Bottom Line evaluation approach, and other means, to assess a District proposal
consistent with this Policy and City goals and objectives more broadly.
This team has been formed and its review is pending.
2. UFinancial Assessment:U All District proposals are required to submit a Financial Plan
to the City for review. Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting
information which may be necessary, the City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity
and servicing ability. Additionally, should a District desire to utilize District funding
for basic infrastructure improvements, as determined by the City in its sole discretion,
staff will assess the value of this benefit against the public benefits received in
exchange.
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially To enable public benefit To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Ongoing for O&M 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
Residential and
Commercial 90% to 10%N/A
This analysis is still being prepared by Economic & Planning Systems and will be
included in the materials presented to City Council on September 4, 2018.
3. UPolicy Evaluation:U All proposals will be evaluated by City staff against this Policy
and the City’s “Model Service Plan”, with any areas of difference being identified,
evaluated and reported to City Council.
Staff and outside counsel’s review is pending.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Location Map
3. Consolidated Service Plan for Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5
4. Applicant Materials
VINE
9
CO
L
L
E
G
E
DOUGLAS
PROSPECT
TI
M
B
E
R
L
I
N
E
LE
M
A
Y
RIV
E
R
S
I
D
E
MULBERRY
TU
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
WILLOX
COUNTRY CLUB
TE
R
R
Y
L
A
K
E
RICHARDS LAKE
MA
S
O
N
MOUNTAIN VISTA
GRE
G
O
R
Y
LINCOLN
GI
D
D
I
N
G
S
SU
M
M
I
T
V
I
E
W
9T
H
28
7
RE
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
JEFF
E
R
S
O
N
SUNIGA
RE
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
TU
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
LINC
O
L
N
LE
M
A
Y
STUART
PITKIN
ST
O
V
E
R
ELIZABETH
CONIFER
TH
O
R
E
A
U
LI
N
D
E
N
13
LI
N
K
MIDPOINT
BA
R
H
A
R
B
O
R
A
B
B
O
T
S
F
O
R
D
INTERNATIONAL
WE
L
C
H
GRE
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
S
R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
LI
T
T
L
E
J
O
H
N
PITKIN
I
Waters Edge Streets
Waters' EdgeLocation Map
ATTACHMENT 1
CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
FOR
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-5
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared by:
White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Professional Corporation
748 Whalers Way, Suite 210
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Submitted On: August 13, 2018
Approved On: ____________, 2018
i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Intent ........................................................................................................................1
Need for Districts .........................................................................................................................1
Objective of the City regarding Districts’ Service Plan ...............................................................1
DEFINITIONS ...............................................................................................................................2
BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ..............................................................................................6
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFIT &
ASSESSED VALUATION ............................................................................................................6
Project and Planned Development ...............................................................................................6
Public Benefits .............................................................................................................................7
Assessed Valuation ......................................................................................................................7
INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ..................................................................7
DISTRICT GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................................8
AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS ........................................................................8
Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations ........................8
Eminent Domain Restriction ..............................................................................................8
Fee Limitation ....................................................................................................................8
Operations and Maintenance ..............................................................................................9
Fire Protection Restriction .................................................................................................9
Public Safety Services Restriction .....................................................................................9
Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ..............................................................9
Golf Course Construction Restriction ................................................................................10
Television Relay and Translation Restriction ..................................................................10
Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation .......................................................................10
Sub-district Restriction ....................................................................................................10
Initial Debt Limitation .....................................................................................................10
Privately Placed Debt Limitation .....................................................................................10
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS .....................................................11
Development Standards ..............................................................................................................11
Contracting .................................................................................................................................12
ii
Land Acquisition and Conveyance ............................................................................................12
Equal Employment and Discrimination .....................................................................................12
FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT ..................................................................................12
Financial Plan .............................................................................................................................13
Mill Levies .................................................................................................................................13
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ......................................................................................13
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies ..................................................13
Operating Mill Levy ........................................................................................................13
Gallagher Adjustments .....................................................................................................14
Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ............................................................................................14
Refunding Debt ................................................................................................................14
Maximum Debt Authorization ..........................................................................................14
Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount ......................................................15
Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification ..............................................................15
Disclosure to Purchasers ............................................................................................................15
External Financial Advisor .........................................................................................................15
Disclosure to Debt Purchasers ....................................................................................................16
Security for Debt ........................................................................................................................16
TABOR Compliance ..................................................................................................................16
Districts’ Operating Costs ..........................................................................................................16
Regional Improvements...............................................................................................................16
Regional Mill Levy Authority ....................................................................................................17
Regional Mill Levy Imposition ..................................................................................................17
City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements ........................................................................17
Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan ..........................................................17
Expenditure of Regional Mill Levy Revenues ...........................................................................17
Intergovernmental Agreement .........................................................................................17
No Intergovernmental Agreement ...................................................................................17
Regional Mill Levy Term ...........................................................................................................17
Completion of Regional Improvements .....................................................................................18
City Authority to Require Imposition ........................................................................................18
iii
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .............................................................18
Gallagher Adjustment ................................................................................................................18
City Fees ........................................................................................................................................18
Bankruptcy Limitations ..............................................................................................................18
Annual Reports ............................................................................................................................19
General .......................................................................................................................................19
Report Requirements ..................................................................................................................19
Narrative ...........................................................................................................................19
Financial Statements .........................................................................................................19
Capital Expenditures ........................................................................................................19
Financial Obligations ........................................................................................................19
Other Information ............................................................................................................19
Reporting of Significant Events .................................................................................................19
Failure to Submit ........................................................................................................................20
Service Plan Amendments ...........................................................................................................20
Material Modifications ................................................................................................................20
Dissolution ....................................................................................................................................21
Sanctions .......................................................................................................................................21
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................21
Resolution of Approval ................................................................................................................22
iv
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A-1 Legal Description of District No. 1 Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-2 Legal Description of District No. 2 Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-3 Legal Description of District No. 3 Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-4 Legal Description of District No. 4 Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-5 Legal Description of District No. 5 Boundaries
EXHIBIT B-1 District No. 1 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-2 District No. 2 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-3 District No. 3 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-4 District No. 4 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-5 District No. 5 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries
EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT E Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT F Legal Description of Annexation Area Boundaries
EXHIBIT G Annexation Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT H Public Improvement Cost Estimates
EXHIBIT I Public Improvements Maps
EXHIBIT J Regional Improvements
EXHIBIT K Financial Plan
EXHIBIT L Public Benefits
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, the Special District Act and
other applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provided for by State law, City Code
or this Service Plan, the Districts’ activities are subject to review and approval by the City
Council only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act.
It is intended that the Districts will provide all or part of the Public Improvements for
the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the Districts.
The primary purpose of the Districts will be to finance the construction of a portion of these
Public Improvements by the issuance of Debt.
It is intended that this Service Plan also requires the Districts to pay a portion of the cost
of the Regional Improvements as part of ensuring that development and those that benefit from
development pay for the associated costs.
The Districts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services
except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
It is the intent of the Districts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred
or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt,
and if the Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or
maintenance functions, to retain only the power necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees
authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions.
It is intended that the Districts shall comply with the provisions of this Service Plan and
that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section XVII
of this Service Plan.
B. Need for the Districts.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the
immediate vicinity of the Districts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the
planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and financing
of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the Districts is therefore
necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most
economic manner possible.
C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts’ Service Plan.
The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the Districts to provide
for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of
2
the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District s. All Debt is
expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum
Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties and at a tax mill levy no higher than the
Maximum Debt Mill Levy for commercial and residential properties, and/or repaid by Fees, as
long as such Fees are not imposed upon or collected from Taxable Property owned or occupied by
an End User for the purpose of creating a capital cost payment obligation as further described in
Section VII.A.2. Debt which is issued within these parameters and, as further described in the
Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to support the
servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt.
II. DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized
format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Annexation Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in
Exhibit F and depicted on the Annexation Area Boundary Map.
Annexation Area Boundary Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit G, depicting
the property which may be included within a District subject to the limitations set forth in
Sections III.C and V below.
Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding a District’s Debt Mill
Levy and Operating Mill Levy. A District’s Aggregate Mill Levy does not include any
Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy.
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that each
District may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, not to exceed fifty (50)
mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments as further described below.
Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use
application required by the City Code, including but not limited to a final plat, for
identifying, among other things, public improvements necessary for facilitating the
development of property within the Service Area.
Board or Boards: means the duly constituted 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, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include
intergovernmental agreements pledging the collection and payment of property taxes or
Fees 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.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality. Any provision
in this Service Plan requiring “City” approval shall be deemed to require the City Council’s
prior written approval, exercised in its sole discretion.
City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
3
City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Any exercise
of approval or other power by the City Council under this Service Plan shall be deemed to
be exercised by the City Council in its sole discretion.
City Manager: means the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property within a
District for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan.
Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual
rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property.
District: means Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 1, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan
District No. 2, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 3, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan
District No. 4 and Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 5, individually, each organized
under and governed by this Service Plan.
District No. 1 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
“A-1” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 1
Boundary Map.
District No. 2 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
“A-2” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 2
Boundary Map.
District No. 3 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
“A-3” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 3
Boundary Map.
District No. 4 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
“A-4” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 4
Boundary Map.
District No. 5 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
“A-5” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 5
Boundary Map.
District No. 1 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 1 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit “B-1” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 2 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 2 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit “B-2” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 3 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 3 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit “B-3” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 3 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 4 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit “B-4” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 3 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 5 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit “B-5” and incorporated by reference.
4
Districts: means Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 1, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan
District No. 2, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 3, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan
District No. 4 and Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 5, collectively, organized under
and governed by this Service Plan.
End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the Districts,
who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or
Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner or
commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs
homes or commercial structures is not an End User.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) is qualified to advise Colorado
governmental entities on matters relating to the issuance of securities b y 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.
Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges each District is authorized to impose
and collect under this Service Plan.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which
is prepared by an External Financial Advisor in accordance with the requirements of this
Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (b) how
the Debt may be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from property
taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all of the Districts’
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 to be accompanied
by a letter of support from an External Financial Advisor. This Financial Plan is 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.
Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be
added to the District Boundaries after the District organization, which property is legally
described in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in
the map attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the Districts are permitted to issue as
set forth in Section IX.B.7 of this Service Plan. The Maximum Debt Authorization shall
not apply to bonds, loans, notes or other instruments issued for the purpose of refunding,
refinancing, reissuing or restructuring outstanding Debt.
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which a
District’s Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on residential property within its boundaries.
This maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31 of the tax
collection year after which a Debt Mill Levy is first imposed by such District.
5
Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in
this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public
Improvements.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties
in the Service Area under an Approved Development Plan.
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned
Development commonly referred to as “Waters’ Edge”.
Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the Districts are
authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve
the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the Districts, except as specifically limited in
Section VII of this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation,
the improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit “H” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference. Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements.
Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City for
funding, in whole or part, by a Regional Mill Levy levied by the Districts, including,
without limitation, the public improvements described in Exhibit “J” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill tax imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating
and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and
overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this
Service Plan.
Service Area: means the property within the District No. 1 Boundaries, District No. 2
Boundaries, District No. 3 Boundaries, District No. 4 Boundaries, District No. 5
Boundaries, Inclusion Area Boundaries and any property within the Annexation Area
Boundaries which is included into any of the Districts in accordance with this Service Plan,
collectively, as may be amended from time to time as further set forth in this Service Plan
and the Special District Act.
Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as
amended.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by
the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any
other applicable law.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the Service Area that will
subject to the ad valorem taxes imposed by the Districts.
Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated by
reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding
it.
6
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION
A. District Boundaries
The area of the District No. 1 Boundaries includes approximately 0.0574 acres, District
No. 2 Boundaries includes approximately 88.354 acres; District No. 3 Boundaries includes
approximately 0.0574 acres; District No. 4 Boundaries includes approximately 0.0574 acres and
District No. 5 Boundaries includes approximately 0.0574 acres. A legal description and map of
the District No. 1 Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit B-1, respectively, a
legal description and map of the District No. 2 Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 and
Exhibit B-2, respectively, a legal description and map of the District No. 3 Boundaries are attached
hereto as Exhibit A-3 and Exhibit B-3, respectively, a legal description and map of the District
No. 4 Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 and Exhibit B-4, respectively and a legal
description and map of the District No. 5 Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A-5 and
Exhibit B-5, respectively. It is anticipated that the Districts’ boundaries may expand or contract
from time to time as the Districts undertake inclusions or exclusions pursuant to the Special District
Act, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service Plan.
B. Inclusion Area Boundaries
The legal description and boundary map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are attached
hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectfully. All property within the Inclusion Area
Boundaries is within the Service Area, and may be included into or excluded from any District
without the prior approval of the City subject to t he limitations of Section V below. The location
of the Service Area is further depicted in the Vicinity Map attached as Exhibit E.
C. Annexation Area Boundaries
The legal description and boundary map of the Annexation Area Boundaries are attached
hereto as Exhibit F and Exhibit G, respectfully. The Annexation Area Boundaries are not
currently within the boundaries of the City. If, in the future, the City annexes any or all of the
Annexation Area Boundaries, the then property owner of the annexed property within the
Annexation Area Boundaries may petition any of the Districts for inclusion of such property into
the boundaries of a District without the prior approval of the City. Upon inclusion of any property
within the Annexation Area Boundaries into any of the Districts, in accordance with this Article
III.C, such property shall be included within the Service Area.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION
A. Project and Planned Development.
The current Developer of the Project and Planned Development is Waters’ Edge
Investments LLLP. The Development Plan for the Project includes approximately 848 single
family residential and multi-family units, a community garden, a community center, a
sustainability center, a commercial center and substantial open space and walking trails. The goal
of this Project and Planned Development is to create an age-targeted community that allows
residents to remain in their homes as long as possible; a segment of the City’s population which
is currently under-served. The Planned Development is currently intended to reach build out in
7
2027, with an estimated population of 2,120 persons. In accordance with the Financial Plan, the
estimated assessed valuation of the Planned Development in 2023 will be $14,281,485, and in
2028 will be $42,985,737.
Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the
development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the Districts. Any such
approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan.
B. Public Benefits.
The organization of the Districts is intended to enable the Project and Planned
Development to deliver a number of public benefits, including but not limited to, providing
housing options to an under-served segment of the City’s population, energy and water
conservation, reduction in the City’s carbon footprint, substantial community services,
enhancements to the natural environment and smart and purposeful growth.
This Project and Planned Development will result in an extraordinary community
exhibiting the newest aspects of smart growth. The Service Area includes approximately 40% open
space, incorporating direct access to such open space from each lot through a system of expansive
trails to allow bike/pedestrian/scooter access to community parks and other amenities. The
Project’s planned non-potable water system is designed not just to save potable water supplies, but
also reduce overall irrigation uses by approximately 30%. The Planned Development includes
single family house designs of 100% single level living, nearly all ranches, and many with stepless
entries designed to allow seniors to age-in-place independently and delay re-location to assisted
living facilities.
The purpose of the Districts is to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction,
installation, relocation and redevelopment of a portion of the Public Improvements necessary to
enable the Project and Planned Development to develop as planned. A detailed description of the
public benefits is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
C. Assessed Valuation
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately Seven Hundred
Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($735,000) and, at build out, is expected to be approximately Forty
Three Million Dollars ($43,000,000). These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably
discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
The Districts shall not add any property to the Service Area without the City’s approval
and in compliance with the Special District Act. The Districts shall be entitled to include within
their boundaries any property within the Annexation Area Boundaries without the prior approval
of the City so long as such property is first annexed into the City, and the then property owner of
property within the Annexation Area Boundaries petitions for inclusion into one of the Districts in
accordance with Section III.C above and the Special District Act. Upon inclusion of any property
within the Annexation Area Boundaries into a District in accordance with this Service Plan, such
property will be included within the Service Area.
8
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
The Districts’ Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible electors”
of the Districts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End
Users who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the Districts’ Boards as
development within the Service Area progresses. The Districts shall not enter into any agreement
by which the End Users’ electoral control of the Boards is removed or diminished.
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS
The Districts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the
Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the
Service Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other
applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions,
restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan.
If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers
or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such
powers and authority shall be deemed to be a part hereof and available to or exercised by t he
Districts upon prior resolution approval of the City Council approving the exercise of such powers
or authority by the Districts. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a Service
Plan Amendment.
A. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations
The Districts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public
Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the
Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as
hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall
constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all
remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan:
1. Eminent Domain Restriction
The Districts shall not exercise its statutory power of eminent domain without first
obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the Districts’
exercise of its eminent domain power 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 subdivision of the State as conferred
by the Special District Act.
2. Fee Limitation
All Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt shall be authorized to be imposed by any
District upon all property within the Service Area only if such Fees are due and payable
no later than upon the issuance of a building permit by the City. Notwithstanding any
of the foregoing, this Fee limitation shall not apply to any Fee impos ed to fund the
operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of Public Improvements or the
9
administration of the Districts, nor shall this Fee limitation apply if the majority of the
District’s Board imposing such Fee is composed of End Users.
3. Operations and Maintenance
The primary purpose of the Districts is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, ins tall,
relocate, redevelop and finance a portion of the Public Improvements. The Districts
shall dedicate the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or
owners’ association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and
the City Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication.
Each District is specifically authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the
Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another
appropriate governmental entity. The Districts shall also be specifically authorized to
conduct operations and maintenance functions related to the Public Improvements that
are not provided by the City or other governmental entity, or to the extent that t he
Districts’ proposed operational and maintenance functions included services or
activities that exceed those provided by the City or other governmental entity.
4. Fire Protection Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless such
facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with
the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related
improvements installed as part of the water system shall not be limited by this
subsection.
5. Public Safety Services Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However,
the Districts may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security
services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction
The Districts shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United
States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the Districts to the
United States Government or the State, or specific ownership taxes which shall be
distributed to and may constitute a revenue source for the Districts without any
limitation.
10
7. Golf Course Construction Restriction
Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate
the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the Districts shall
not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop,
finance, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the City.
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities and
services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction
project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written
approval from the City Manager.
9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation
The Districts shall not exercise their City sales and use tax exemption.
10. Sub-district Restriction
The Districts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act
without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
11. Initial Debt Limitation
A District shall not: (i) issue any Debt; nor (ii) impose a Debt Mill Levy for the payment
of Debt by direct imposition or by transfer of funds from the operating fund to the Debt
service funds, on or before the effective date of approval by the City of (a) an Approved
Development Plan relating to that phase of development or Public Improvements to be
financed by the issuance of such Debt or imposition of such Debt Mill Levy, or (b) the
effective date of an intergovernmental agreement between the City and such District,
at the City’s option, which secures the delivery of certain Public Benefits described in
Section IV.B.
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the issuing 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 C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the
11
designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax-
exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by
us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield
securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the Debt],
including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable
considering the financial circumstances of the District.
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit H summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be
constructed and/or installed by the Districts. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public
Improvements may vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth
in Exhibit H, excluding any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to serve
the Planned Development, are approximately Ninety Eight Million Five Hundred Twelve
Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($98,512,577) in 2018 dollars, of which Thirty
Two Million One Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($32,162,257)
are costs related to “Non-Basic Infrastructure” and which does not include approximately Forty-
One Million Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Three Dollars ($41,519,523)
in “Indirect Costs” of the Planned Development which are necessary to provide the extraordinary
Public Benefit as set forth in Exhibit L. The cost estimates are based upon preliminary
engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements and include all
construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as land acquisition, engineering
services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the anticipated location, operation,
and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as Exhibit I. Changes in the Public
Improvements or costs, which are approved by the City in an Approved Development Plan, shall
not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the preliminary nature of the Project,
the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and approving the Approved
Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede the Service Plan with
regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements.
The design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will
be determined by the Districts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned
Development and the availability of funding sources. The Districts may, in their discretion, phase
the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer, delay,
reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion,
operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not
constitute a Service Plan Amendment. The Districts shall also be permitted to allocate costs
between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in its discretion.
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain
operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Development Standards
The Districts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in
accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental
entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The Districts directly, or indirectly through any
Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable
permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing such work.
12
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 constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt 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 District.
B. Contracting
The Districts shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and
construction contracting.
C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance
The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the Districts from the
Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent
MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for improvements. Land,
easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to
conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at
no cost to the City, shall include an ALTA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the
environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites.
D. Equal Employment and Discrimination
In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the Districts shall
not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging,
promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing
provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the Districts to accomplish the purposes of
this Service Plan.
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements. This section also describes the
Districts’ obligation to help finance certain Regional Improvements.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, no District
shall impose a Debt Mill Levy until (a) such District and/or the Developer has obtained an
Approved Development Plan relating to that phase of development or Public Improvements to be
financed by the imposition of such Debt Mill Levy, or (b) the City and such District, at the City’s
option, have entered into an intergovernmental agreement securing the delivery of cert ain Public
Benefits described in Section IV.B. 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 as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan.
13
A. Financial Plan
The Districts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit K and incorporated by reference, reflects
the Districts’ anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of
the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the
Districts derived from Districts’ mill levies, Fees imposed by the Districts, specific ownership
taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan is based on
economic, political and industry conditions as they 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 they are in compliance with
this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this Section IX.
Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of
Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development
assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan
anticipates that the Districts will acquire, construct, and complete a portion of the Public
Improvements needed to serve the Service Area.
The Financial Plan demonstrates that the Districts will have the financial ability to
discharge all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore,
the Districts will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an
opinion as to whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the Districts at the time of
issuance.
B. Mill Levies
It is anticipated that the Districts will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy
on all property within the Service Area. In doing so, the following shall apply:
1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum
The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum, which is fifty (50) mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments as described
below.
2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies
The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum.
3. Operating Mill Levy
Each District may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to fifty (50) mills until such
District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once a District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, such
District’s Operating Mill Levy shall not exceed ten (10) mills, subject to Gallagher
Adjustments as described below. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Operating
Mill Levy limitation set forth in this Section IX.B.3 shall not apply if the majority of
14
the District’s Board imposing such Operating Mill Levy is composed of End Users,
subject to continual compliance with the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum.
4. Gallagher Adjustments
In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable
Property changes after January 1, 2018, or any subsequent constitutionally mandated
tax credit, cut or abatement, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy,
Operating Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided
may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall
be determined by the District’s Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the
actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor
diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of
the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a
change in the method of calculating assessed valuation.
5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges
Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that
exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall
not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has
been approved by a Service Plan Amendment.
6. Refunding Debt
The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding
purposes if: (1) a majority of the issuing District’s Board is composed of End Users
and have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding
will result in a net present value savings as set forth in C.R.S. Section 11-56-101 et seq.
7. Maximum Debt Authorization
The Districts anticipate approximately Ninety Eight Million Five Hundred Twelve
Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($98,512,577) in Project costs 2018
dollars as set forth in Exhibit H, of which Thirty Two Million One Hundred Sixty Two
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($32,162,257) are costs related to “Non-
Basic Infrastructure” and which does not include approximately Forty-One Million
Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Three Dollars ($41,519,523)
in “Indirect Costs” of the Planned Development which are necessary to provide the
extraordinary Public Benefit as set forth in Exhibit L, and the Districts anticipate
issuing approximately Forty Five Million Dollars ($45,000,000) in Debt to pay such
costs as set forth in Exhibit K, which Debt issuance amount shall be the amount of the
Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts shall not issue Debt in excess of the
Maximum Debt Authorization, and further shall not issue Debt in excess of Eighteen
15
Million Dollars ($18,000,000) to finance and/or reimburse the Developer for costs
related to “Basic Infrastructure” as further set forth in Exhibit H.
The Maximum Debt Authorization, and the limitation on Debt related to “Basic
Infrastructure” shall not apply to bonds, loans, notes or other instruments issued for the
purpose of refunding, refinancing, reissuing or restructuring outstanding Debt. 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 H 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 requiring a Service Plan
Amendment so long as increases are reasonably related to the Public Improvements set
forth in Exhibit H and any Approved Development Plan.
C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount
The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued.
The maximum interest rate on any Debt is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The
maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply with
all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other applicable State law
and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities.
D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification
The Districts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the
market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payed by the
Districts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The Districts shall provide this written opinion
to the City before issuing any Debt based on it.
E. Disclosure to Purchasers
The Districts will use reasonable efforts to assure that all Developers provide written notice
to all purchasers of property in the Districts notifying them of the Districts’ existing mill levies,
the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and of the Districts’ authority to impose and
collect Fees. The form of notice shall be filed with the City prior to the initial issuance of the Debt
of the District imposing the mill levy which is the subject of the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term.
F. External Financial Advisor
An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the issuing District to provide a written
opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the issuing District once the total
amount of Debt exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial Advisor is to
provide advice to the issuing District’s Board regarding the proposed terms and whether Debt
conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the District, the projected
tax base increase in the District, the security offered and other considerations as may be identified
by the Advisor. The issuing District shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction, or other
appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the External
Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the Advisor’s
opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature, couponing, credit
16
spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details of the proposed Debt serve
the best interest of the issuing District.
Debt shall not be undertaken by the Districts if found to be unreasonable by the External
Financial Advisor.
G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers
District Debt shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
“By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and
consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the
principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution
of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the
Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt
of the City of Fort Collins”
Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and
interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the
offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property
within the Service Area.
H. Security for Debt
The Districts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the
indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed
as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the Districts’ obligations; nor shall anything in the
Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in
the event of default by the Districts in the payment of any such obligation.
I. TABOR Compliance
The Districts shall comply with the provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article
X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”). In the discretion of the Boards, the Districts
may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and
programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain under the
control of the District’s Board.
J. Districts’ Operating Costs
The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and
administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial
operations, are anticipated to be $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 $100,000.
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy as set forth in Section IX.B.3, as
well as other revenues legally available to the District.
17
X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Districts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to
the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the Districts shall impose
a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries under the
following terms:
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five
(5) mills as part of the Districts’ initial TABOR election.
B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition.
Each District shall impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills
within one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the District requesting the
imposition of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed. Upon receiving such
notice and imposing a Regional Mill Levy, the Districts in the aggregate shall be entitled to retain
the first Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to reimburse the Developer for costs
incurred to address negative impacts on intersections beyond Turnberry Road and County Club
Road pursuant to that certain Development Agreement between the City and the Developer dated
June 4, 2018, and recorded in the real property records of Larimer County, Colorado on June 21,
2018 at Reception Number 20180037646.
C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements.
Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be
constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to
property owners within the Service Area. The City shall require that planned developments that (i)
are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional Improvement also impose
a Regional Milly Levy, to the extent possible.
D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.
If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public
improvements that the District would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re-
design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law.
E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues.
Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as follows:
1. Intergovernmental Agreement
If the City and the District have executed an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill
Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement;
2. No Intergovernmental Agreement
If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the District and the City, then
after the Districts in the aggregate retain the initial $250,000 as further set forth in
Section X.B above, then all revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to
the City, for use by the City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing,
18
acquiring, relocating, redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which
benefit the End Users of the Districts as prioritized and determined by the City.
F. Regional Mill Levy Term.
The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years
from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed.
G. Completion of Regional Improvements.
All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year
Regional Mill Levy term.
H. City Authority to Require Imposition.
The City’s authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy shall
expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which a District first imposes a Debt
Mill Levy.
I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.
The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the
Aggregate Mill Levy.
J. Gallagher Adjustment.
In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after January 1, 2018,
or any subsequent constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy
may be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall
be determined by the District in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues
generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result
of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the
ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating
assessed valuation
XI. CITY FEES
The Districts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code.
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS
All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those
pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and
Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve
this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be
set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii)
are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or governmental
powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are
also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy
law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section
943(b)(6).
19
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS
A. General
The Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no later
than September 1st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the
Districts have been issued. The Districts shall be permitted to file a consolidated annual report.
B. Report Requirements
Unless waived by the City Manager, the Districts’ annual report must include the following
in the Annual Report:
1. Narrative
A narrative summary of the progress of the Districts in implementing its Service
Plan for the report year.
2. Financial Statements
Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the
Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the 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 operation (i.e., revenue and
expenditures) for the report year.
3. Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of the capital expenditures incurred by the Districts in development of
improvements in the report year.
4. Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of financial obligations of the Districts at the end of the report year, including the
amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued
in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the
Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total Districts mill
levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5. Other Information
Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Manager.
C. Reporting of Significant Events
The annual report shall include information as to any of the following that occurred during
the report year:
1. Boundary changes made or proposed to District boundaries as of December 31
of the report year.
20
2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered
into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year.
3. Copies of the Districts’ rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to
the Districts’ rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year.
4. A summary of any litigation which involves the Districts’ Public Improvements
as of December 31 of the report year.
5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the Districts that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report
year.
6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the Districts, which continue beyond
a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
7. Any inability of the Districts to pay their obligations as they come due, in
accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety
(90) day period.
D. Failure to Submit
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the Districts’ Boards 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 Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan,
at the discretion of the City Manager.
XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances.
The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts to provide
required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for
numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making
up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of
the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs consistent with
the then-current Approved Development Plans for the Project. Any action of the Districts which
is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided in
in Section XV below or any other applicable provision of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be
a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service
Plan. All other departures from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-
by-case basis as to whether such departures are a material modification under this Service Plan or
the Special District Act.
XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action
of the Districts that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless
otherwise provided in this Service Plan.
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service
Plan Amendment include, without limitation:
21
1. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to
the taxpayers of the Districts;
2. Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or
acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service,
function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a
facility required by the Service Plan;
4. Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this
Service Plan.
Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation
changes in quantities of improvements, facilities or equipment; immaterial cost differences; and
actions expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
XVI. DISSOLUTION
Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which any
District was created have been accomplished, the District shall file a petition in district court for
dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until such
District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other
financial obligations as required pursuant to State law.
XVII. SANCTIONS
Should the Districts 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 requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under the Special Districts Act,
the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate:
1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act;
2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other
administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the Districts’
development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services;
3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the Districts are in default; or
4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking injunctive relief against the Districts, to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law.
XVIII. CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes
that:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area
to be served by the Districts;
2. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts is inadequate for
present and projected needs;
22
3. The District is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service
Area; and
4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XIX. 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.
EXHIBIT A-1
Legal Description of District No. 1 Boundaries
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
A parcel of land, located in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section Twenty-nine (29), Township
8 North (T.8N.), Range Sixty-Eight West (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City
of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as
follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 29 and assuming the West line of Section
29 as bearing North 00°28’06” East being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate
System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2638.33 feet and with all
other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East along said West line a distance of 1705.41 feet to the extension of
centerline of Morningstar Way;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East along said extension a distance of 30.00 feet to the East Right-of-
Way line of Turnberry Road;
THENCE continuing along said extension South 89°31’52” East a distance of 24.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE South 00°28’06” West a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE North 89°31’52” West a distance of 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.;
Said described parcel of land contains 2,500 Square Feet or 0.057 Acres, more or less (±).
SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT
I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Parcel
Description was prepared under my personal supervision and checking, and that it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
___________________________________________________________
Steven Parks - on behalf of King Surveyors
Colorado Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor #38348
KING SURVEYORS
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 686-5011
EXHIBIT A-2
Legal Description of District No. 2 Boundaries
O:\2015374-B\PROP_DESC\2015374B-D2-OVERALL BD.docPage 1 of 2
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2
A parcel of land, located in the South Half (S1/2) of Section Thirty (30), Township 8 North
(T.8N.), Range Sixty-Eight West (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City of Fort
Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1 through 345 and Tracts AA, BB, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K-1, K-2, L, L-1, L-2, M,
M-1, M-2, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z of Waters Edge as recorded July 19, 2010 as
Reception No. 20100041008 of the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, located in
the South Half (S1/2) of Section Thirty (30), Township Eight North (T.8N.), Range Sixty-eight
West (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado.
Said described parcel of land contains 88.126 acres, more or less.
SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT
I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Parcel
Description was prepared under my personal supervision and checking, and that it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
___________________________________________________________
Steven Parks - on behalf of King Surveyors
Colorado Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor #38348
KING SURVEYORS
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 686-5011
EXHIBIT A-3
Legal Description of District No. 3 Boundaries
O:\2015374-B\PROP_DESC\2015374B-D3-PARCEL.doc Page 1 of 2
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 3
A parcel of land, located in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section Twenty-nine (29), Township
8 North (T.8N.), Range Sixty-Eight West (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City
of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as
follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 29 and assuming the West line of Section
29 as bearing North 00°28’06” East being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate
System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2638.33 feet and with all
other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East along said West line a distance of 1705.41 feet to the extension of
centerline of Morningstar Way;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East along said extension a distance of 30.00 feet to the East Right-of-
Way line of Turnberry Road;
THENCE continuing along said extension South 89°31’52” East a distance of 24.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE South 00°28’06” West a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE North 89°31’52” West a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East a distance of 50.00 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Said described parcel of land contains 2,500 Square Feet or 0.057 Acres, more or less (±).
SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT
I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Parcel
Description was prepared under my personal supervision and checking, and that it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
___________________________________________________________
Steven Parks - on behalf of King Surveyors
Colorado Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor #38348
KING SURVEYORS
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 686-5011
EXHIBIT A-4
Legal Description of District No. 4 Boundaries
O:\2015374-B\PROP_DESC\2015374B-D4-PARCEL.doc Page 1 of 2
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 4
A parcel of land, located in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section Twenty-nine (29), Township
8 North (T.8N.), Range Sixty-Eight West (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City
of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as
follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 29 and assuming the West line of Section
29 as bearing North 00°28’06” East being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate
System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2638.33 feet and with all
other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East along said West line a distance of 1705.41 feet to the extension of
centerline of Morningstar Way;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East along said extension a distance of 30.00 feet to the East Right-of-
Way line of Turnberry Road;
THENCE continuing along said extension South 89°31’52” East a distance of 74.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE South 00°28’06” West a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE North 89°31’52” West a distance of 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Said described parcel of land contains 2,500 Square Feet or 0.057 Acres, more or less (±).
SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT
I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Parcel
Description was prepared under my personal supervision and checking, and that it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
___________________________________________________________
Steven Parks - on behalf of King Surveyors
Colorado Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor #38348
KING SURVEYORS
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 686-5011
EXHIBIT A-5
Legal Description of District No. 5 Boundaries
O:\2015374-B\PROP_DESC\2015374B-D5-PARCEL.doc Page 1 of 2
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 5
A parcel of land, located in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section Twenty-nine (29), Township
8 North (T.8N.), Range Sixty-Eight West (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City
of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as
follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 29 and assuming the West line of Section
29 as bearing North 00°28’06” East being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate
System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2638.33 feet and with all
other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East along said West line a distance of 1705.41 feet to the extension of
centerline of Morningstar Way;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East along said extension a distance of 30.00 feet to the East Right-of-
Way line of Turnberry Road;
THENCE continuing along said extension South 89°31’52” East a distance of 74.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE South 89°31’52” East a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE South 00°28’06” West a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE North 89°31’52” West a distance of 50.00 feet;
THENCE North 00°28’06” East a distance of 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Said described parcel of land contains 2,500 Square Feet or 0.057 Acres, more or less (±).
SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT
I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Parcel
Description was prepared under my personal supervision and checking, and that it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
___________________________________________________________
Steven Parks - on behalf of King Surveyors
Colorado Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor #38348
KING SURVEYORS
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 686-5011
EXHIBIT B-1
District No. 1 Boundary Map
SUBJECT
PARCEL
2500 SQ.FT.
0.057 ACRES
650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 | fax: (970) 686-5821
KING SURVEYORS
email: contact@KingSurveyors.com
PR
O
F
E
S
SIONAL LA N D S U R VEYOR
EXHIBIT B-2
District No. 2 Boundary Map
650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 | fax: (970) 686-5821
KING SURVEYORS
email: contact@KingSurveyors.com
EXHIBIT B-3
District No. 3 Boundary Map
SUBJECT
PARCEL
2500 SQ.FT.
0.057 ACRES
650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 | fax: (970) 686-5821
KING SURVEYORS
email: contact@KingSurveyors.com
PR
O
F
E
S
S IONAL LA N D S U R VEYOR
EXHIBIT B-4
District No. 4 Boundary Map
SUBJECT
PARCEL
2500 SQ.FT.
0.057 ACRES
650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 | fax: (970) 686-5821
KING SURVEYORS
email: contact@KingSurveyors.com
PR
O
F
E
S
S IONAL LA N D S U R VEYOR
EXHIBIT B-5
District No. 5 Boundary Map
SUBJECT
PARCEL
2500 SQ.FT.
0.057 ACRES
650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 | fax: (970) 686-5821
KING SURVEYORS
email: contact@KingSurveyors.com
PR
O
F
E
S
S IONAL LA N D S U R VEYOR
EXHIBIT C
Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries
EXHIBIT D
Inclusion Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT E
Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT F
Legal Description of Annexation Area Boundaries
EXHIBIT G
Annexation Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT H
Public Improvement Cost Estimates
EXHIBIT H
INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Description of Phase I Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Descriptions Units Unit Type Unit Cost Total Cost Estimates
Non-Basic
Non-potable Water System
Irrigation System
Non-potable pump station 1 $585,000 $585,000
Irrigation Distribution System 1 $1,972,270 $1,972,270
Open Space Irrigation System 1 $548,230 $548,230
Total Irrigation System $3,105,500
Open Space, Parks and Recreation
Artisan Workshop/Inventors Center 1 $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Sustainability Center (composting, solar 1 1,500,000$ $1,500,000
farm, charging for electric mowers)
Plantings
Turfgrass Sod 185,600 sf $0.50 $92,800
Dryland Grass Seeding 769,120 sf $0.06 $46,147
Dryland Grass Seeding (buffer)150,700 sf $0.06 $9,042
Steel Edging 10,900 lf $2.80 $30,520
Weed Barrier Fabric 203,600 sf $0.20 $40,720
Rock Mulch 203,600 sf $1.40 $285,040
Crusher Fines Paths 7,100 sf $2.25 $15,975
Plant Materials
Shade Trees 540 $375 $202,500
Ornamental Tress 691 $250 $172,750
Evergreen Trees 319 $310 $98,890
Junipers 148 $200 $29,600
Fruit Trees 232 $75 $17,400
Shrubs
Deciduous shrubs 3,750 $40 $150,000
Evergreen shrubs 609 $50 $30,450
Ornamental grass (5 gal)2,433 $22 $53,526
Ornamental grass (1 gal)2,160 $15 $32,400
Boulders 35 tons $175 $6,125
Total Plantings $1,313,885
Site Furnishings
Benches 10 $1,000 $10,000
Open Space Arbor 12 $2,500 $30,000
Patio with Fire Pit 2 $4,500 $9,000
Patio w/fountain 2 $5,000 $10,000
EXHIBIT H
INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Description of Phase I Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Median Arbor 2 $2,500 $5,000
Arbor Structure and Seat Wall 4 $6,000 $24,000
Total Site Furnishings $88,000
Top Soil, Fine Grading & Prep
Soil prep for seed and sod areas 389,200 sf $0.16 $62,272
Soil prep for dryland seed 688,510 sf $0.13 $89,506
Total Soil Prep $151,778
Masonry
Neighbor Entry Columns 12 $3,500 $42,000
Primary Entry Monument 1 $24,000 $24,000
Sculpture 1 $60,000 $60,000
Total Masonry $126,000
Less 1/2 of Plantings, Site Furnishings, ($839,832)
Top Soil and Masonry
Total Open Space, Parks and Recreation $5,839,832
Total Cost Estimates - Non-Basic $8,945,332
Plus allowance @18% for design, 18%$1,610,160
engineering, etc.
Plus Construction Management 3.40%$304,141
Contingency 20%$2,171,927
Total - Non-Basic $13,031,559
Basic
Phase 1 & 2 Lots (209 lots)
Allocation (50%) of Overlot Grading 752,500$
General conditions, removals, erosion 1,437,151
control & earthwork
Sanitary Sewer 1,584,628
Storm Drain 1,266,319
Waterline 1,524,885
Retaining walls 1,033,982
Utility Sleeving 127,500
Concrete Flatwork 1,961,008
Base Course and Paving 2,396,827
Traffic Control 109,700
EXHIBIT H
INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Description of Phase I Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Sub-total Phases 1 & 2 12,194,500$
Phase 3 Lots (38 lots)
General conditions, removals, erosion 219,501
control & earthwork
Storm Drain 17,706
Waterline 183,890
Utility Sleeving 10,000
Concrete Flatwork 178,235
Base Course and Paving 182,568
Traffic Control 3,100
Sub-total Phase 3 795,000$
Phases 4 & 5 Lots (130 townhome and condo lots)
General conditions, removals, erosion 551,201
control & earthwork
Sanitary Sewer 334,441
Storm Drain 95,177
Waterline 304,626
Concrete Flatwork 410,862
Base Course and Paving 612,561
Traffic Control 35,450
Sub-total Phases 4 & 5 2,344,318$
Open Space, Parks and Recreation
Open Space Fencing
Rail Fence 20,580 lf $20 $411,600
Courtyard Gates 50 $600 $30,000
Total Fencing $441,600
Plus 1/2 of Plantings, Site Furnishings, $839,832
Top Soil and Masonry
Sub-total Open Space, Parks and Rec.$1,281,432
Total Cost Estimates -Basic 16,615,250$
Plus allowance @18% for design, 18%$2,990,745
engineering, etc.
Plus Construction Management 3.40%$564,918
EXHIBIT H
INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Description of Phase I Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Contingency 20%$4,034,183
Total - Basic*$24,205,096
Grand Total Phase I $37,236,655
*District Debt shall not exceed
$18,000,000 to finance "Basic
Infrastructure" in accordance with
Service Plan
EXHIBIT H
INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Description of Phase II Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Descriptions Units Unit Type Unit Cost Total Cost Estimates
Non-Basic
Non-potable Water System
Total Irrigation System $2,611,000
Open Space, Parks and Recreation
Senior Activities Center 1 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
Rehabilitate Windsor No 8 Ditch 1 2,000,000$ $2,000,000
Total Plantings $1,531,000
Total Site Furnishings $103,000
Top Soil, Fine Grading & Prep $177,000
Total Masonry $147,000
Total Retaining Walls - Open Space $542,000
Less 1/2 of Plantings, and Top Soil, (979,000)
Site Furnishings & Masonry
Total Parks and Recreation $10,521,000
Plus allowance @18% for design, 18%2,363,760$
engineering, etc.
Plus Construction Management 3.40%446,488$
Contingency 20%3,188,450$
Grand Total Non-Basic 19,130,698$
* Phase II is 1.165 times larger than
Phase I so Phase II cost estimates are
calculated at 1.165 of Phase I
estimates.
EXHIBIT H
INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Description of Phase II Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Basic
Estimated Phase II lots (471 lots)1,693,000$
Allocation (50%) of Overlot Grading 3,234,000
General conditions, removals, erosion
control & earthwork 3,565,000
Sanitary Sewer 2,849,000
Storm Drain 3,431,000
Waterline 2,326,000
Retaining walls 287,000
Utility Sleeving 4,412,000
Concrete Flatwork 5,393,000
Base Course and Paving 247,000
Traffic Control $514,000
Total Open Space Fencing 979,000
Plus 1/2 of Plantings, and Top Soil,
Site Furnishings & Masonry (basic portion)28,930,000$
Sub-total Phase II Basic
Note: Since Phase II is not platted, cost estimates are factored in relationship to the bids for Phases 1 and 2,
in Phase I.
18%5,207,400$
Plus allowance @18% for design,
engineering, etc.3.40%983,620$
Plus Construction Management
20%7,024,204$
Contingency
42,145,224$
Total Basic - Phase II**
61,275,922$
Grand Total Phase II
* Phase II is 1.165 times larger than
Phase I so Phase II cost estimates are
calculated at 1.165 of Phase I
estimates.
98,512,577$
Grand Total Phases I and II
**District Debt shall not exceed
$18,000,000 to finance "Basic
Infrastructure" in accordance with
Service Plan
EXHIBIT I
Public Improvement Maps
EXHIBIT J
Regional Improvements
EXHIBIT K
Financial Plan
WATERS' EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
1 Development Projection at 40.000 (target) Mills for Debt Service, plus fees -- Service Plan
2050 Series 2029, G.O. Bonds, Pay & Cancel Refg of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money, Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
2049
0
< < < < < < < < Residential > > > > > > > >< Platted/Developed Lots > < < < < < < < < < < Commercial > > > > > > > > > >
Mkt Value As'ed Value*As'ed Value Mkt Value As'ed Value District District District
Biennial @ 7.20%@ 29.00%Biennial @ 29.00%Total D/S Mill Levy D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Total Total
Total Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Cumulative of Market Total Comm'l Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Assessed [40.000 Target] Collections Collected Facility Fees Available
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 [40.000 Cap] @ 98%@ 6% Collections Revenue
2016 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 00
2018 0 0 0 0 4,356,166 0 0 0 0 0 $0 40.000 0 0 0 0
2019 84 44,432,891 0 6,063,733 0 0 0 0 0 40.000 0 0 252,000 252,000
2020 109 2,665,973 110,185,943 0 6,063,733 1,263,288 0 0 0 0 1,263,288 40.000 49,521 2,971 342,500 394,992
2021 109 174,534,762 3,199,168 5,913,733 1,758,483 0 0 0 4,957,651 40.000 194,340 11,660 342,500 548,500
2022 108 10,472,086 249,018,996 7,933,388 5,963,733 1,758,483 0 0 0 0 9,691,870 40.000 379,921 22,795 340,000 742,717
2023 105 309,343,023 12,566,503 5,463,733 1,714,983 20,000 5,520,404 0 14,281,485 40.000 559,834 33,590 332,500 925,924
2024 105 18,560,581 389,434,112 17,929,368 5,963,733 1,729,483 0 331,224 5,851,628 0 19,658,850 40.000 770,627 46,238 332,500 1,149,365
2025 105 452,195,230 22,272,698 4,932,550 1,584,483 20,000 11,595,057 1,600,917 25,458,097 40.000 997,957 59,877 332,500 1,390,335
2026 92 27,131,714 537,119,625 28,039,256 2,582,083 1,729,483 0 695,703 12,290,760 1,696,972 31,465,711 40.000 1,233,456 74,007 284,250 1,591,713
2027 31 559,014,713 32,558,057 0 1,430,439 30,000 21,253,954 3,362,566 37,351,062 40.000 1,464,162 87,850 77,500 1,629,511
2028 0 33,540,883 592,555,596 38,672,613 0 748,804 0 1,275,237 22,529,192 3,564,320 42,985,737 40.000 1,685,041 101,102 0 1,786,143
2029 0 592,555,596 40,249,059 0 0 0 22,529,192 6,163,647 46,412,706 40.000 1,819,378 109,163 0 1,928,541
2030 0 35,553,336 628,108,932 42,664,003 0 0 0 1,351,751 23,880,943 6,533,466 49,197,468 40.000 1,928,541 115,712 0 2,044,253
2031 0 628,108,932 42,664,003 0 0 0 23,880,943 6,533,466 49,197,468 40.000 1,928,541 115,712 0 2,044,253
2032 0 37,686,536 665,795,468 45,223,843 0 0 0 1,432,857 25,313,800 6,925,473 52,149,317 40.000 2,044,253 122,655 0 2,166,908
2033 0 665,795,468 45,223,843 0 0 0 25,313,800 6,925,473 52,149,317 40.000 2,044,253 122,655 0 2,166,908
2034 0 39,947,728 705,743,196 47,937,274 0 0 0 1,518,828 26,832,628 7,341,002 55,278,276 40.000 2,166,908 130,015 0 2,296,923
2035 0 705,743,196 47,937,274 0 0 0 26,832,628 7,341,002 55,278,276 40.000 2,166,908 130,015 0 2,296,923
2036 0 42,344,592 748,087,787 50,813,510 0 0 0 1,609,958 28,442,585 7,781,462 58,594,972 40.000 2,296,923 137,815 0 2,434,738
2037 748,087,787 50,813,510 0 28,442,585 7,781,462 58,594,972 40.000 2,296,923 137,815 2,434,738
2038 44,885,267 792,973,055 53,862,321 0 1,706,555 30,149,140 8,248,350 62,110,670 40.000 2,434,738 146,084 2,580,823
2039 792,973,055 53,862,321 0 30,149,140 8,248,350 62,110,670 40.000 2,434,738 146,084 2,580,823
2040 47,578,383 840,551,438 57,094,060 0 1,808,948 31,958,089 8,743,251 65,837,311 40.000 2,580,823 154,849 2,735,672
2041 840,551,438 57,094,060 0 31,958,089 8,743,251 65,837,311 40.000 2,580,823 154,849 2,735,672
2042 50,433,086 890,984,524 60,519,704 0 1,917,485 33,875,574 9,267,846 69,787,549 40.000 2,735,672 164,140 2,899,812
2043 890,984,524 60,519,704 0 33,875,574 9,267,846 69,787,549 40.000 2,735,672 164,140 2,899,812
2044 53,459,071 944,443,596 64,150,886 0 2,032,534 35,908,109 9,823,916 73,974,802 40.000 2,899,812 173,989 3,073,801
2045 944,443,596 64,150,886 0 35,908,109 9,823,916 73,974,802 40.000 2,899,812 173,989 3,073,801
2046 56,666,616 1,001,110,211 67,999,939 0 2,154,487 38,062,595 10,413,351 78,413,290 40.000 3,073,801 184,428 3,258,229
2047 1,001,110,211 67,999,939 0 38,062,595 10,413,351 78,413,290 40.000 3,073,801 184,428 3,258,229
2048 60,066,613 1,061,176,824 72,079,935 0 2,283,756 40,346,351 11,038,153 83,118,088 40.000 3,258,229 195,494 3,453,723
2049 1,061,176,824 72,079,935 0 40,346,351 11,038,153 83,118,088 40.000 3,258,229 195,494 3,453,723
2050 63,670,609 1,124,847,433 76,404,731 0 2,420,781 42,767,132 11,700,442 88,105,173 40.000 3,453,723 207,223 3,660,946
2051 1,124,847,433 76,404,731 0 42,767,132 11,700,442 88,105,173 40.000 3,453,723 207,223 3,660,946
2052 67,490,846 1,192,338,280 80,989,015 0 2,566,028 45,333,160 12,402,468 93,391,483 40.000 3,660,946 219,657 3,880,603
2053 1,192,338,280 80,989,015 45,333,160 12,402,468 93,391,483 40.000 3,660,946 219,657 3,880,603
2054 71,540,297 1,263,878,576 85,848,356 2,719,990 48,053,149 13,146,616 98,994,972 40.000 3,880,603 232,836 4,113,439
2055 1,263,878,576 85,848,356 48,053,149 13,146,616 98,994,972 40.000 3,880,603 232,836 4,113,439
2056 75,832,715 1,339,711,291 90,999,257 2,883,189 50,936,338 13,935,413 104,934,671 40.000 4,113,439 246,806 4,360,245
2057 1,339,711,291 90,999,257 50,936,338 13,935,413 104,934,671 40.000 4,113,439 246,806 4,360,245
2058 80,382,677 1,420,093,968 96,459,213 3,056,180 53,992,518 14,771,538 111,230,751 40.000 4,360,245 261,615 4,621,860
2059 1,420,093,968 96,459,213 53,992,518 14,771,538 111,230,751 40.000 4,360,245 261,615 4,621,860
______ ____________________ ____________________ __________ __________ __________
848 919,909,610 70,000 33,765,492 98,931,551 5,935,893 2,636,250 107,503,694
[*] RAR @ 7.96% thru 2017
7/30/2018 F WEMD Fin Plan 18 NR SP Fin Plan1+2029 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
1
1
2050
2049
0
YEAR
2016
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
WATERS' EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
Development Projection at 40.000 (target) Mills for Debt Service, plus fees -- Service Plan
Series 2029, G.O. Bonds, Pay & Cancel Refg of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money, Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
Series 2019 Ser. 2029
$33,535,000 Par $50,330,000 Par Surplus Senior Senior Cov. of Net DS: Cov. of Net DS:
[Net $24.449 MM] [Net $19.204 MM]Total Annual Release @ Cumulative Debt/Debt/ @ 40.000 Target @ 40.000 Cap
Net Available Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Funds on Hand* Surplus 50% D/A Surplus Assessed Act'l Value & 0.0 U.R.A. Mills & 0.0 U.R.A. Mills
for Debt Svc Service Service Service Used as Source to $5,033,000 $5,033,000 Target Ratio Ratio & Sales PIF Revs & Sales PIF Revs
0 n/a
0 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.0%0.0%
0 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.0%0.0%
252,000 $0 252,000 252,000 2655% 29%0.0%0.0%
394,992 0 0 394,992 0 646,992 676% 19%0.0%0.0%
548,500 0 0 548,500 0 1,195,492 346% 13%0.0%0.0%
742,717 0 0 742,717 0 1,938,209 235% 10%0.0%0.0%
925,924 1,676,750 1,676,750 (750,826)0 1,187,383 171%8%55.2%55.2%
1,149,365 1,676,750 1,676,750 (527,385)0 659,998 132%7%68.5%68.5%
1,390,335 1,676,750 1,676,750 (286,415)0 373,583 107%6%82.9%82.9%
1,591,713 1,676,750 1,676,750 (85,037)0 288,546 90%6%94.9%94.9%
1,629,511 1,676,750 1,676,750 (47,239)0 241,307 78%5%97.2%97.2%
1,786,143 1,781,750 1,781,750 4,393 0 245,701 72%5%100.2%100.2%
1,928,541 1,926,500 $0 1,926,500 245,000 (242,959)0 2,741 0%0%100.1%100.1%
2,044,253 [Ref'd by ser. '29]2,013,200 2,013,200 31,053 0 33,795 102%8%101.5%101.5%
2,044,253 2,043,200 2,043,200 1,053 0 34,848 96%7%100.1%100.1%
2,166,908 2,162,000 2,162,000 4,908 0 39,756 96%7%100.2%100.2%
2,166,908 2,166,000 2,166,000 908 0 40,665 90%7%100.0%100.0%
2,296,923 2,294,600 2,294,600 2,323 0 42,988 90%7%100.1%100.1%
2,296,923 2,292,800 2,292,800 4,123 0 47,110 84%6%100.2%100.2%
2,434,738 2,430,600 2,430,600 4,138 0 51,249 84%6%100.2%100.2%
2,434,738 2,432,400 2,432,400 2,338 0 53,587 78%6%100.1%100.1%
2,580,823 2,578,400 2,578,400 2,423 0 56,010 77%6%100.1%100.1%
2,580,823 2,577,800 2,577,800 3,023 0 59,032 72%5%100.1%100.1%
2,735,672 2,731,200 2,731,200 4,472 0 63,504 70%5%100.2%100.2%
2,735,672 2,732,400 2,732,400 3,272 0 66,776 65%5%100.1%100.1%
2,899,812 2,897,200 2,897,200 2,612 0 69,388 64%5%100.1%100.1%
2,899,812 2,899,000 2,899,000 812 0 70,201 58%4%100.0%100.0%
3,073,801 3,069,000 3,069,000 4,801 0 75,002 57%4%100.2%100.2%
3,073,801 3,070,400 3,070,400 3,401 0 78,402 52%4%100.1%100.1%
3,258,229 3,254,600 3,254,600 3,629 0 82,032 50%4%100.1%100.1%
3,258,229 3,254,200 3,254,200 4,029 0 86,061 45%3%100.1%100.1%
3,453,723 3,451,200 3,451,200 2,523 0 88,583 42%3%100.1%100.1%
3,453,723 3,452,600 3,452,600 1,123 0 89,706 38%3%100.0%100.0%
3,660,946 3,655,800 3,655,800 5,146 0 94,852 35%3%100.1%100.1%
3,660,946 3,657,600 3,657,600 3,346 0 98,198 30%2%100.1%100.1%
3,880,603 3,880,600 3,880,600 3 0 98,201 27%2%100.0%100.0%
3,880,603 3,875,800 3,875,800 4,803 0 103,004 23%2%100.1%100.1%
4,113,439 4,111,800 4,111,800 1,639 0 104,643 20%1%100.0%100.0%
4,113,439 4,108,800 4,108,800 4,639 0 109,282 16%1%100.1%100.1%
4,360,245 4,355,800 4,355,800 4,445 0 113,728 12%1%100.1%100.1%
4,360,245 4,357,600 4,357,600 2,645 0 116,373 8%1%100.1%100.1%
4,621,860 4,618,400 4,618,400 3,460 0 119,834 4%0%100.1%100.1%
4,621,860 4,617,600 4,617,600 4,260 124,094 0 0%0%100.1%100.1%
_________ _________ _________ __________________ _________
107,503,694 12,092,000 95,042,600 107,134,600 124,094 124,094
[FJul3018 19nrspF1] [FJul3018 29ig19nF1]
7/30/2018 F WEMD Fin Plan 18 NR SP Fin Plan1+2029 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
2
1
2050
2049
0
YEAR
2016
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
WATERS' EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
Operations Revenue and Expense Projection
Total Total S.O. Tax Total
Assessed Oper'ns Collections Collections Available Total
Value Mill Levy @ 98%@ 98%For O&M Mills
0 10.000 0 0 0 50.000
0 10.000 0 0 0 50.000
1,263,288 10.000 12,380 12,133 24,513 50.000
4,957,651 10.000 48,585 47,613 96,198 50.000
9,691,870 10.000 94,980 93,081 188,061 50.000
14,281,485 10.000 139,959 137,159 277,118 50.000
19,658,850 10.000 192,657 188,804 381,460 50.000
25,458,097 10.000 249,489 244,500 493,989 50.000
31,465,711 10.000 308,364 302,197 610,561 50.000
37,351,062 10.000 366,040 358,720 724,760 50.000
42,985,737 10.000 421,260 412,835 834,095 50.000
46,412,706 10.000 454,845 445,748 900,592 50.000
49,197,468 10.000 482,135 472,492 954,628 50.000
49,197,468 10.000 482,135 472,492 954,628 50.000
52,149,317 10.000 511,063 500,842 1,011,905 50.000
52,149,317 10.000 511,063 500,842 1,011,905 50.000
55,278,276 10.000 541,727 530,893 1,072,620 50.000
55,278,276 10.000 541,727 530,893 1,072,620 50.000
58,594,972 10.000 574,231 562,746 1,136,977 50.000
58,594,972 10.000 574,231 562,746 1,136,977 50.000
62,110,670 10.000 608,685 596,511 1,205,195 50.000
62,110,670 10.000 608,685 596,511 1,205,195 50.000
65,837,311 10.000 645,206 632,302 1,277,507 50.000
65,837,311 10.000 645,206 632,302 1,277,507 50.000
69,787,549 10.000 683,918 670,240 1,354,158 50.000
69,787,549 10.000 683,918 670,240 1,354,158 50.000
73,974,802 10.000 724,953 710,454 1,435,407 50.000
73,974,802 10.000 724,953 710,454 1,435,407 50.000
78,413,290 10.000 768,450 753,081 1,521,531 50.000
78,413,290 10.000 768,450 753,081 1,521,531 50.000
83,118,088 10.000 814,557 798,266 1,612,823 50.000
83,118,088 10.000 814,557 798,266 1,612,823 50.000
88,105,173 10.000 863,431 846,162 1,709,593 50.000
88,105,173 10.000 863,431 846,162 1,709,593 50.000
93,391,483 10.000 915,237 896,932 1,812,168 50.000
93,391,483 10.000 915,237 896,932 1,812,168 50.000
98,994,972 10.000 970,151 950,748 1,920,898 50.000
98,994,972 10.000 970,151 950,748 1,920,898 50.000
104,934,671 10.000 1,028,360 1,007,793 2,036,152 50.000
104,934,671 10.000 1,028,360 1,007,793 2,036,152 50.000
111,230,751 10.000 1,090,061 1,068,260 2,158,321 50.000
111,230,751 10.000 1,090,061 1,068,260 2,158,321 50.000
_______ _______________
24,732,888 24,238,230 48,971,118
7/30/2018 F WEMD Fin Plan 18 NR SP Fin Plan1+2029 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
3
WATERS' EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
Development Summary
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 7/30/18)
Residential Development Commercial Development
Product Type
Estate Custom Water
Front Courtyard Ranch Standard Ranch -
2 car
Standard Ranch -
3 Car
Large Active
Adult Patio Townhome Condominium Comm'l Prop.
Base $ ('18)$1,125,000 $1,500,000 $459,333 $536,250 $608,333 $730,000 $408,750 $340,667 $250/sf
Res'l Totals Comm'l Totals
2016 - - - - - - - - - - -
2017 - - - - - - - - - - -
2018 - - - - - - - - - - -
2019 - - 15 24 11 10 24 - 84 - -
2020 5 4 15 24 11 10 24 16 109 - -
2021 5 4 15 24 11 10 24 16 109 - -
2022 5 3 15 24 11 10 24 16 108 - -
2023 5 - 15 24 11 10 24 16 105 20,000 20,000
2024 5 - 15 24 11 10 24 16 105 - -
2025 5 - 15 24 11 10 24 16 105 20,000 20,000
2026 5 - 11 24 11 10 18 13 92 - -
2027 1 - - 18 10 2 - - 31 30,000 30,000
2028 - - - - - - - - - - -
2029 - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - -
2031 - - - - - - - - - - -
2032 - - - - - - - - - - -
2033 - - - - - - - - - - -
2034 - - - - - - - - - - -
2035 - - - - - - - - - - -
2036 - - - - - - - - - - -
36 11 116 210 98 82 186 109 848 70,000 70,000
MV @ Full Buildout $40,500,000 $16,500,000 $53,282,628 $112,612,500 $59,616,634 $59,860,000 $76,027,500 $37,132,703 $455,531,965 $17,500,000 $17,500,000
(base prices;un-infl.)
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
Res'l Fac. Fees: SFD @ $2,500/SFD, $1,750/SFA
7/30/2018 F WEMD Fin Plan 18 Dev Summ Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
4
Jul 30, 2018 11:09 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-19NRSPF1)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2019
Delivery Date 12/01/2019
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 33,535,000.00
33,535,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 24,449,310.42
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 5,030,250.00
Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,084,739.58
8,114,989.58
Cost of Issuance:
Other Cost of Issuance 300,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Underwriter's Discount 670,700.00
33,535,000.00
5
Jul 30, 2018 11:09 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-19NRSPF1)
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2019
Delivery Date 12/01/2019
First Coupon 06/01/2020
Last Maturity 12/01/2049
Arbitrage Yield 5.000000%
True Interest Cost (TIC)5.148087%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)5.000000%
All-In TIC 5.215746%
Average Coupon 5.000000%
Average Life (years)24.153
Weighted Average Maturity (years)24.153
Duration of Issue (years)13.931
Par Amount 33,535,000.00
Bond Proceeds 33,535,000.00
Total Interest 40,498,750.00
Net Interest 41,169,450.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 809,975,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 809,975,000.00
Total Debt Service 74,033,750.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 6,536,250.00
Average Annual Debt Service 2,467,791.67
Underwriter's Fees (per $1000)
Average Takedown
Other Fee 20.000000
Total Underwriter's Discount 20.000000
Bid Price 98.000000
Average
Par Average Average Maturity PV of 1 bp
Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life Date change
Term Bond due 2049 33,535,000.00 100.000 5.000% 24.153 01/25/2044 51,979.25
33,535,000.00 24.153 51,979.25
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 33,535,000.00 33,535,000.00 33,535,000.00
+ Accrued Interest
+ Premium (Discount)
- Underwriter's Discount -670,700.00 -670,700.00
- Cost of Issuance Expense -300,000.00
- Other Amounts
Target Value 32,864,300.00 32,564,300.00 33,535,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2019 12/01/2019 12/01/2019
Yield 5.148087%5.215746%5.000000%
6
Jul 30, 2018 11:09 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-19NRSPF1)
BOND DEBT SERVICE
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
06/01/2020 838,375 838,375
12/01/2020 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2021 838,375 838,375
12/01/2021 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2022 838,375 838,375
12/01/2022 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2023 838,375 838,375
12/01/2023 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2024 838,375 838,375
12/01/2024 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2025 838,375 838,375
12/01/2025 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2026 838,375 838,375
12/01/2026 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2027 838,375 838,375
12/01/2027 838,375 838,375 1,676,750
06/01/2028 838,375 838,375
12/01/2028 105,000 5.000% 838,375 943,375 1,781,750
06/01/2029 835,750 835,750
12/01/2029 255,000 5.000% 835,750 1,090,750 1,926,500
06/01/2030 829,375 829,375
12/01/2030 385,000 5.000% 829,375 1,214,375 2,043,750
06/01/2031 819,750 819,750
12/01/2031 400,000 5.000% 819,750 1,219,750 2,039,500
06/01/2032 809,750 809,750
12/01/2032 545,000 5.000% 809,750 1,354,750 2,164,500
06/01/2033 796,125 796,125
12/01/2033 570,000 5.000% 796,125 1,366,125 2,162,250
06/01/2034 781,875 781,875
12/01/2034 730,000 5.000% 781,875 1,511,875 2,293,750
06/01/2035 763,625 763,625
12/01/2035 765,000 5.000% 763,625 1,528,625 2,292,250
06/01/2036 744,500 744,500
12/01/2036 945,000 5.000% 744,500 1,689,500 2,434,000
06/01/2037 720,875 720,875
12/01/2037 990,000 5.000% 720,875 1,710,875 2,431,750
06/01/2038 696,125 696,125
12/01/2038 1,185,000 5.000% 696,125 1,881,125 2,577,250
06/01/2039 666,500 666,500
12/01/2039 1,245,000 5.000% 666,500 1,911,500 2,578,000
06/01/2040 635,375 635,375
12/01/2040 1,460,000 5.000% 635,375 2,095,375 2,730,750
06/01/2041 598,875 598,875
12/01/2041 1,535,000 5.000% 598,875 2,133,875 2,732,750
06/01/2042 560,500 560,500
12/01/2042 1,775,000 5.000% 560,500 2,335,500 2,896,000
06/01/2043 516,125 516,125
12/01/2043 1,865,000 5.000% 516,125 2,381,125 2,897,250
06/01/2044 469,500 469,500
12/01/2044 2,130,000 5.000% 469,500 2,599,500 3,069,000
06/01/2045 416,250 416,250
12/01/2045 2,240,000 5.000% 416,250 2,656,250 3,072,500
06/01/2046 360,250 360,250
12/01/2046 2,535,000 5.000% 360,250 2,895,250 3,255,500
06/01/2047 296,875 296,875
12/01/2047 2,660,000 5.000% 296,875 2,956,875 3,253,750
06/01/2048 230,375 230,375
12/01/2048 2,990,000 5.000% 230,375 3,220,375 3,450,750
06/01/2049 155,625 155,625
12/01/2049 6,225,000 5.000% 155,625 6,380,625 6,536,250
33,535,000 40,498,750 74,033,750 74,033,750
7
Jul 30, 2018 11:09 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-19NRSPF1)
NET DEBT SERVICE
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Capitalized
Period Total Debt Service Interest Net
Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Reserve Fund Fund Debt Service
12/01/2020 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750
12/01/2021 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750
12/01/2022 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750
12/01/2023 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750.00
12/01/2024 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750.00
12/01/2025 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750.00
12/01/2026 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750.00
12/01/2027 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,676,750.00
12/01/2028 105,000 1,676,750 1,781,750 1,781,750.00
12/01/2029 255,000 1,671,500 1,926,500 1,926,500.00
12/01/2030 385,000 1,658,750 2,043,750 2,043,750.00
12/01/2031 400,000 1,639,500 2,039,500 2,039,500.00
12/01/2032 545,000 1,619,500 2,164,500 2,164,500.00
12/01/2033 570,000 1,592,250 2,162,250 2,162,250.00
12/01/2034 730,000 1,563,750 2,293,750 2,293,750.00
12/01/2035 765,000 1,527,250 2,292,250 2,292,250.00
12/01/2036 945,000 1,489,000 2,434,000 2,434,000.00
12/01/2037 990,000 1,441,750 2,431,750 2,431,750.00
12/01/2038 1,185,000 1,392,250 2,577,250 2,577,250.00
12/01/2039 1,245,000 1,333,000 2,578,000 2,578,000.00
12/01/2040 1,460,000 1,270,750 2,730,750 2,730,750.00
12/01/2041 1,535,000 1,197,750 2,732,750 2,732,750.00
12/01/2042 1,775,000 1,121,000 2,896,000 2,896,000.00
12/01/2043 1,865,000 1,032,250 2,897,250 2,897,250.00
12/01/2044 2,130,000 939,000 3,069,000 3,069,000.00
12/01/2045 2,240,000 832,500 3,072,500 3,072,500.00
12/01/2046 2,535,000 720,500 3,255,500 3,255,500.00
12/01/2047 2,660,000 593,750 3,253,750 3,253,750.00
12/01/2048 2,990,000 460,750 3,450,750 3,450,750.00
12/01/2049 6,225,000 311,250 6,536,250 3,084,739.58 3,451,510.42
33,535,000 40,498,750 74,033,750 3,084,739.58 5,030,250 65,918,760.42
8
Jul 30, 2018 11:09 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-19NRSPF1)
BOND SOLUTION
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Period Proposed Proposed Debt Service Total Adj Revenue Unused Debt Serv
Ending Principal Debt Service Adjustments Debt Service Constraints Revenues Coverage
12/01/2020 1,676,750 -1,676,750 52,492 52,492
12/01/2021 1,676,750 -1,676,750 206,000 206,000
12/01/2022 1,676,750 -1,676,750 402,717 402,717
12/01/2023 1,676,750 1,676,750 593,424 -1,083,326 35.39134%
12/01/2024 1,676,750 1,676,750 816,865 -859,885 48.71713%
12/01/2025 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,057,835 -618,915 63.08841%
12/01/2026 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,307,463 -369,287 77.97604%
12/01/2027 1,676,750 1,676,750 1,552,011 -124,739 92.56069%
12/01/2028 105,000 1,781,750 1,781,750 1,786,143 4,393 100.24658%
12/01/2029 255,000 1,926,500 1,926,500 1,928,541 2,041 100.10593%
12/01/2030 385,000 2,043,750 2,043,750 2,044,253 503 100.02462%
12/01/2031 400,000 2,039,500 2,039,500 2,044,253 4,753 100.23306%
12/01/2032 545,000 2,164,500 2,164,500 2,166,908 2,408 100.11127%
12/01/2033 570,000 2,162,250 2,162,250 2,166,908 4,658 100.21544%
12/01/2034 730,000 2,293,750 2,293,750 2,296,923 3,173 100.13833%
12/01/2035 765,000 2,292,250 2,292,250 2,296,923 4,673 100.20386%
12/01/2036 945,000 2,434,000 2,434,000 2,434,738 738 100.03033%
12/01/2037 990,000 2,431,750 2,431,750 2,434,738 2,988 100.12289%
12/01/2038 1,185,000 2,577,250 2,577,250 2,580,823 3,573 100.13862%
12/01/2039 1,245,000 2,578,000 2,578,000 2,580,823 2,823 100.10949%
12/01/2040 1,460,000 2,730,750 2,730,750 2,735,672 4,922 100.18024%
12/01/2041 1,535,000 2,732,750 2,732,750 2,735,672 2,922 100.10692%
12/01/2042 1,775,000 2,896,000 2,896,000 2,899,812 3,812 100.13164%
12/01/2043 1,865,000 2,897,250 2,897,250 2,899,812 2,562 100.08844%
12/01/2044 2,130,000 3,069,000 3,069,000 3,073,801 4,801 100.15643%
12/01/2045 2,240,000 3,072,500 3,072,500 3,073,801 1,301 100.04234%
12/01/2046 2,535,000 3,255,500 3,255,500 3,258,229 2,729 100.08383%
12/01/2047 2,660,000 3,253,750 3,253,750 3,258,229 4,479 100.13766%
12/01/2048 2,990,000 3,450,750 3,450,750 3,453,723 2,973 100.08615%
12/01/2049 6,225,000 6,536,250 -3,084,740 3,451,510 3,453,723 2,212 100.06410%
33,535,000 74,033,750 -8,114,990 65,918,760 63,593,256 -2,325,504
9
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2029
Delivery Date 12/01/2029
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 50,330,000.00
Other Sources of Funds:
Funds on Hand* 245,000.00
Series 2019 - DSRF 3,084,740.00
3,329,740.00
53,659,740.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 19,203,715.00
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit* 34,004,375.00
Cost of Issuance:
Other Cost of Issuance 200,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Underwriter's Discount 251,650.00
53,659,740.00
[*] Estimated balances, (tbd).
10
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2029
Delivery Date 12/01/2029
First Coupon 06/01/2030
Last Maturity 12/01/2059
Arbitrage Yield 4.000000%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.035174%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.000000%
All-In TIC 4.063305%
Average Coupon 4.000000%
Average Life (years)22.210
Weighted Average Maturity (years)22.210
Duration of Issue (years)14.524
Par Amount 50,330,000.00
Bond Proceeds 50,330,000.00
Total Interest 44,712,600.00
Net Interest 44,964,250.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 1,117,815,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 1,117,815,000.00
Total Debt Service 95,042,600.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 4,618,400.00
Average Annual Debt Service 3,168,086.67
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 2059 50,330,000.00 100.000 4.000% 22.210 02/16/2052 87,574.20
50,330,000.00 22.210 87,574.20
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 50,330,000.00 50,330,000.00 50,330,000.00
+ Accrued Interest
+ Premium (Discount)
- Underwriter's Discount -251,650.00 -251,650.00
- Cost of Issuance Expense -200,000.00
- Other Amounts
Target Value 50,078,350.00 49,878,350.00 50,330,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2029 12/01/2029 12/01/2029
Yield 4.035174%4.063305%4.000000%
11
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
BOND DEBT SERVICE
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
06/01/2030 1,006,600 1,006,600
12/01/2030 1,006,600 1,006,600 2,013,200
06/01/2031 1,006,600 1,006,600
12/01/2031 30,000 4.000% 1,006,600 1,036,600 2,043,200
06/01/2032 1,006,000 1,006,000
12/01/2032 150,000 4.000% 1,006,000 1,156,000 2,162,000
06/01/2033 1,003,000 1,003,000
12/01/2033 160,000 4.000% 1,003,000 1,163,000 2,166,000
06/01/2034 999,800 999,800
12/01/2034 295,000 4.000% 999,800 1,294,800 2,294,600
06/01/2035 993,900 993,900
12/01/2035 305,000 4.000% 993,900 1,298,900 2,292,800
06/01/2036 987,800 987,800
12/01/2036 455,000 4.000% 987,800 1,442,800 2,430,600
06/01/2037 978,700 978,700
12/01/2037 475,000 4.000% 978,700 1,453,700 2,432,400
06/01/2038 969,200 969,200
12/01/2038 640,000 4.000% 969,200 1,609,200 2,578,400
06/01/2039 956,400 956,400
12/01/2039 665,000 4.000% 956,400 1,621,400 2,577,800
06/01/2040 943,100 943,100
12/01/2040 845,000 4.000% 943,100 1,788,100 2,731,200
06/01/2041 926,200 926,200
12/01/2041 880,000 4.000% 926,200 1,806,200 2,732,400
06/01/2042 908,600 908,600
12/01/2042 1,080,000 4.000% 908,600 1,988,600 2,897,200
06/01/2043 887,000 887,000
12/01/2043 1,125,000 4.000% 887,000 2,012,000 2,899,000
06/01/2044 864,500 864,500
12/01/2044 1,340,000 4.000% 864,500 2,204,500 3,069,000
06/01/2045 837,700 837,700
12/01/2045 1,395,000 4.000% 837,700 2,232,700 3,070,400
06/01/2046 809,800 809,800
12/01/2046 1,635,000 4.000% 809,800 2,444,800 3,254,600
06/01/2047 777,100 777,100
12/01/2047 1,700,000 4.000% 777,100 2,477,100 3,254,200
06/01/2048 743,100 743,100
12/01/2048 1,965,000 4.000% 743,100 2,708,100 3,451,200
06/01/2049 703,800 703,800
12/01/2049 2,045,000 4.000% 703,800 2,748,800 3,452,600
06/01/2050 662,900 662,900
12/01/2050 2,330,000 4.000% 662,900 2,992,900 3,655,800
06/01/2051 616,300 616,300
12/01/2051 2,425,000 4.000% 616,300 3,041,300 3,657,600
06/01/2052 567,800 567,800
12/01/2052 2,745,000 4.000% 567,800 3,312,800 3,880,600
06/01/2053 512,900 512,900
12/01/2053 2,850,000 4.000% 512,900 3,362,900 3,875,800
06/01/2054 455,900 455,900
12/01/2054 3,200,000 4.000% 455,900 3,655,900 4,111,800
06/01/2055 391,900 391,900
12/01/2055 3,325,000 4.000% 391,900 3,716,900 4,108,800
06/01/2056 325,400 325,400
12/01/2056 3,705,000 4.000% 325,400 4,030,400 4,355,800
06/01/2057 251,300 251,300
12/01/2057 3,855,000 4.000% 251,300 4,106,300 4,357,600
06/01/2058 174,200 174,200
12/01/2058 4,270,000 4.000% 174,200 4,444,200 4,618,400
06/01/2059 88,800 88,800
12/01/2059 4,440,000 4.000% 88,800 4,528,800 4,617,600
50,330,000 44,712,600 95,042,600 95,042,600
12
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
NET DEBT SERVICE
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Period Total Net
Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Debt Service
12/01/2030 2,013,200 2,013,200 2,013,200
12/01/2031 30,000 2,013,200 2,043,200 2,043,200
12/01/2032 150,000 2,012,000 2,162,000 2,162,000
12/01/2033 160,000 2,006,000 2,166,000 2,166,000
12/01/2034 295,000 1,999,600 2,294,600 2,294,600
12/01/2035 305,000 1,987,800 2,292,800 2,292,800
12/01/2036 455,000 1,975,600 2,430,600 2,430,600
12/01/2037 475,000 1,957,400 2,432,400 2,432,400
12/01/2038 640,000 1,938,400 2,578,400 2,578,400
12/01/2039 665,000 1,912,800 2,577,800 2,577,800
12/01/2040 845,000 1,886,200 2,731,200 2,731,200
12/01/2041 880,000 1,852,400 2,732,400 2,732,400
12/01/2042 1,080,000 1,817,200 2,897,200 2,897,200
12/01/2043 1,125,000 1,774,000 2,899,000 2,899,000
12/01/2044 1,340,000 1,729,000 3,069,000 3,069,000
12/01/2045 1,395,000 1,675,400 3,070,400 3,070,400
12/01/2046 1,635,000 1,619,600 3,254,600 3,254,600
12/01/2047 1,700,000 1,554,200 3,254,200 3,254,200
12/01/2048 1,965,000 1,486,200 3,451,200 3,451,200
12/01/2049 2,045,000 1,407,600 3,452,600 3,452,600
12/01/2050 2,330,000 1,325,800 3,655,800 3,655,800
12/01/2051 2,425,000 1,232,600 3,657,600 3,657,600
12/01/2052 2,745,000 1,135,600 3,880,600 3,880,600
12/01/2053 2,850,000 1,025,800 3,875,800 3,875,800
12/01/2054 3,200,000 911,800 4,111,800 4,111,800
12/01/2055 3,325,000 783,800 4,108,800 4,108,800
12/01/2056 3,705,000 650,800 4,355,800 4,355,800
12/01/2057 3,855,000 502,600 4,357,600 4,357,600
12/01/2058 4,270,000 348,400 4,618,400 4,618,400
12/01/2059 4,440,000 177,600 4,617,600 4,617,600
50,330,000 44,712,600 95,042,600 95,042,600
13
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Maturity Interest Par Call Call
Bond Date Rate Amount Date Price
7/30/18: Ser 19 NR SP, 5.00%, 100x, 40mls, FG+6% BiRE:
TERM49 12/01/2030 5.000% 385,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2031 5.000% 400,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2032 5.000% 545,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2033 5.000% 570,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2034 5.000% 730,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2035 5.000% 765,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2036 5.000% 945,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2037 5.000% 990,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2038 5.000% 1,185,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2039 5.000% 1,245,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2040 5.000% 1,460,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2041 5.000% 1,535,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2042 5.000% 1,775,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2043 5.000% 1,865,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2044 5.000% 2,130,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2045 5.000% 2,240,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2046 5.000% 2,535,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2047 5.000% 2,660,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2048 5.000% 2,990,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
12/01/2049 5.000% 6,225,000.00 12/01/2029 100.000
33,175,000.00
14
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2029
Delivery Date 12/01/2029
7/30/18: Ser 19 NR SP, 5.00%, 100x, 40mls, FG+6% BiRE
Period Principal
Ending Interest Redeemed Total
12/01/2029 829,375.00 33,175,000.00 34,004,375.00
829,375.00 33,175,000.00 34,004,375.00
15
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
PRIOR BOND DEBT SERVICE
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
12/01/2029 829,375 829,375
06/01/2030 829,375 829,375
12/01/2030 385,000 5.000% 829,375 1,214,375 2,873,125
06/01/2031 819,750 819,750
12/01/2031 400,000 5.000% 819,750 1,219,750 2,039,500
06/01/2032 809,750 809,750
12/01/2032 545,000 5.000% 809,750 1,354,750 2,164,500
06/01/2033 796,125 796,125
12/01/2033 570,000 5.000% 796,125 1,366,125 2,162,250
06/01/2034 781,875 781,875
12/01/2034 730,000 5.000% 781,875 1,511,875 2,293,750
06/01/2035 763,625 763,625
12/01/2035 765,000 5.000% 763,625 1,528,625 2,292,250
06/01/2036 744,500 744,500
12/01/2036 945,000 5.000% 744,500 1,689,500 2,434,000
06/01/2037 720,875 720,875
12/01/2037 990,000 5.000% 720,875 1,710,875 2,431,750
06/01/2038 696,125 696,125
12/01/2038 1,185,000 5.000% 696,125 1,881,125 2,577,250
06/01/2039 666,500 666,500
12/01/2039 1,245,000 5.000% 666,500 1,911,500 2,578,000
06/01/2040 635,375 635,375
12/01/2040 1,460,000 5.000% 635,375 2,095,375 2,730,750
06/01/2041 598,875 598,875
12/01/2041 1,535,000 5.000% 598,875 2,133,875 2,732,750
06/01/2042 560,500 560,500
12/01/2042 1,775,000 5.000% 560,500 2,335,500 2,896,000
06/01/2043 516,125 516,125
12/01/2043 1,865,000 5.000% 516,125 2,381,125 2,897,250
06/01/2044 469,500 469,500
12/01/2044 2,130,000 5.000% 469,500 2,599,500 3,069,000
06/01/2045 416,250 416,250
12/01/2045 2,240,000 5.000% 416,250 2,656,250 3,072,500
06/01/2046 360,250 360,250
12/01/2046 2,535,000 5.000% 360,250 2,895,250 3,255,500
06/01/2047 296,875 296,875
12/01/2047 2,660,000 5.000% 296,875 2,956,875 3,253,750
06/01/2048 230,375 230,375
12/01/2048 2,990,000 5.000% 230,375 3,220,375 3,450,750
06/01/2049 155,625 155,625
12/01/2049 6,225,000 5.000% 155,625 6,380,625 6,536,250
33,175,000 24,565,875 57,740,875 57,740,875
16
Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Water's Edge MD 17:FJUL3018-29IG19F1,29IG19F1)
BOND SOLUTION
WATER'S EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2029
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2019 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Period Proposed Proposed Total Adj Revenue Unused Debt Serv
Ending Principal Debt Service Debt Service Constraints Revenues Coverage
12/01/2030 2,013,200 2,013,200 2,044,253 31,053 101.54248%
12/01/2031 30,000 2,043,200 2,043,200 2,044,253 1,053 100.05155%
12/01/2032 150,000 2,162,000 2,162,000 2,166,908 4,908 100.22703%
12/01/2033 160,000 2,166,000 2,166,000 2,166,908 908 100.04194%
12/01/2034 295,000 2,294,600 2,294,600 2,296,923 2,323 100.10123%
12/01/2035 305,000 2,292,800 2,292,800 2,296,923 4,123 100.17982%
12/01/2036 455,000 2,430,600 2,430,600 2,434,738 4,138 100.17026%
12/01/2037 475,000 2,432,400 2,432,400 2,434,738 2,338 100.09613%
12/01/2038 640,000 2,578,400 2,578,400 2,580,823 2,423 100.09396%
12/01/2039 665,000 2,577,800 2,577,800 2,580,823 3,023 100.11725%
12/01/2040 845,000 2,731,200 2,731,200 2,735,672 4,472 100.16373%
12/01/2041 880,000 2,732,400 2,732,400 2,735,672 3,272 100.11975%
12/01/2042 1,080,000 2,897,200 2,897,200 2,899,812 2,612 100.09016%
12/01/2043 1,125,000 2,899,000 2,899,000 2,899,812 812 100.02802%
12/01/2044 1,340,000 3,069,000 3,069,000 3,073,801 4,801 100.15643%
12/01/2045 1,395,000 3,070,400 3,070,400 3,073,801 3,401 100.11077%
12/01/2046 1,635,000 3,254,600 3,254,600 3,258,229 3,629 100.11150%
12/01/2047 1,700,000 3,254,200 3,254,200 3,258,229 4,029 100.12381%
12/01/2048 1,965,000 3,451,200 3,451,200 3,453,723 2,523 100.07310%
12/01/2049 2,045,000 3,452,600 3,452,600 3,453,723 1,123 100.03252%
12/01/2050 2,330,000 3,655,800 3,655,800 3,660,946 5,146 100.14077%
12/01/2051 2,425,000 3,657,600 3,657,600 3,660,946 3,346 100.09148%
12/01/2052 2,745,000 3,880,600 3,880,600 3,880,603 3 100.00008%
12/01/2053 2,850,000 3,875,800 3,875,800 3,880,603 4,803 100.12392%
12/01/2054 3,200,000 4,111,800 4,111,800 4,113,439 1,639 100.03986%
12/01/2055 3,325,000 4,108,800 4,108,800 4,113,439 4,639 100.11291%
12/01/2056 3,705,000 4,355,800 4,355,800 4,360,245 4,445 100.10206%
12/01/2057 3,855,000 4,357,600 4,357,600 4,360,245 2,645 100.06071%
12/01/2058 4,270,000 4,618,400 4,618,400 4,621,860 3,460 100.07492%
12/01/2059 4,440,000 4,617,600 4,617,600 4,621,860 4,260 100.09226%
50,330,000 95,042,600 95,042,600 95,163,952 121,352
17
EXHIBIT L
Public Benefits
This Project and Planned Development is proposed to support the needs of the City’s
residents, the surrounding community, and the City’s stated missions and objectives. Enabling the
Districts to finance a portion of the “basic” Public Improvements is essential to offset the higher
costs associated with delivering public benefit through extraordinary development outcomes.
Indirect Costs: Necessary extraordinary developer costs associated with delivering public
benefits/extraordinary development outcomes that will not be incurred by the Districts and will not be
approved in the Districts’ Public Improvement Cost Estimates.
Stepless Entries Accommodate Senior Access. Builder cost on 83% of lots. 457 x $4,500 =
$2,056,500
Wider Lots to Accommodate Single-level, Senior-Friendly House Design. Lost revenue from
fewer lots (170) plus additional infrastructure (20% greater). 170 x $50,000 + 20% of $29,370,566 =
$14,374,113 discounted by 25%* = $10,780,585
Single-level House Additional Building Costs. Differential of 10% per square foot. $243-220 x
2250sf x 739 houses = $38,243,250 discounted by 25%* = $ 28,682,438
Total Indirect Costs: $41,519,523.
Enhanced Development Outcomes:
Delaying Assisted Living. Delaying moving to independent senior living or assisted living through
community design, house design, a walkable community, with a senior center and other compelling public
spaces onsite, and helpful services such as snow removal, irrigation control and front yard landscape
maintenance. Assuming a cost of $6,000/mo. for independent/assisted living vs. $2,500/mo. to stay in the
house: $6000- $2500 for 10% of residents for 12 to 24 months = $3,561,000 to $7,140,000 annually
Basic Public Improvement Costs: $59,009,201
Non- Basic (Extraordinary) Public Improvement Costs: $31,281,352
Direct Public Improvement Costs (basic + non-basic): $90,290,553
Requested Debt Authorization: $45,000,000
Indirect Developer Costs: $41,519,523
Extraordinary Public Benefits (annual): $3,561,000-$7,140,000
Following is a description of the Public Improvements that the Districts will assist in
funding and operating, along with an analysis of how this infrastructure will serve to support
various City initiatives and goals. This Project has incorporated the following basic principles and
goals which underlie this analysis:
City of Fort Collins Mission Statement: Innovate – Sustain – Connect (the “Triple Bottom
Line”)
Operating Philosophy and Principles of Actual Communities (Waters’ Edge General
Partner)
o To help engaged individuals in our sphere of influence to self-actualize
o To create communities that allow residents to reach their full potential, physically,
mentally and spiritually
o To make a positive impact on surrounding communities
o To respect the environment
o A well-managed, financially strong, profitable company to implement these
principles
Waters’ Edge Primary Goals:
o Reduce the period of time when an individual is unhealthy, either mentally or
physically, for the Waters’ Edge Community, and the surrounding areas of
influence
o Implement recommendations from the Health Impact Assessment as specifically
prepared for Waters’ Edge, a community for adults aged 55 and older (attached)
o Implement City Plan
Metropolitan District Formation and Operating Principle: Facilities provided by the
districts will be extraordinary and go above and beyond those provided in a typical
development and those required by the City. The proposed districts will assist in
implementing City goals and initiatives which will enhance the health and wellness of
Waters’ Edge residents and the surrounding community.
Social Equity: By promoting the health and wellness of its residents, the proposed districts
effects social equity in a positive manner. It provides services to an underserved and
vulnerable population, encourages social and civic interaction and engagement, and serves
to foster a sense of community among its residents. To the extent that the facilities and
services provided by the proposed District disproportionately benefit an older population,
the proposal may be seen as exclusionary. However, this population is increasing rapidly
and Larimer County’s over-65 demographic is one of the fastest growing in Colorado. The
City should consider the specific needs of this population when evaluating this proposal.
Facilities to be Funded and Operated by the Districts and City Goals and Initiatives Supported
I. City Initiative Supported: Climate Action Plan (Road to 2020)
The infrastructure detailed below, to be funded and operated by the proposed
metropolitan districts, will support the City’s Climate Action Plan by (1) helping to
reduce emissions and promote sequestration of greenhouse gases, (2) significantly
reducing water usage, and (3) reducing solid waste generation.
Health, Wellness and Senior Activity Center: This walkable facility, which will
incorporate an artisan workshop and inventors center, will serve Waters’ Edge residents
and the surrounding community. The center will reduce the community’s carbon
footprint by reducing car travel to the existing Senior Center of 8 miles and travel to
existing recreation of 4.5 miles.1
Non-potable water system: This system is essential to be able to affordably create and
maintain the project’s expansive natural areas. The non-potable irrigation system will
be financed by the land developer and then dedicated to the metropolitan districts. The
non-potable system may be operated by the metropolitan districts.
o Annual pumping costs are estimated at $25,100, as compared to $176,700 for
potable water costs, based on current ELCO rates.
o Estimated long-term annual water usage is reduced by 55%, from 51.4 million
gallons to 23.5 million gallons.
o Fertilizers applied through the system prevent over-fertilization and associated
runoff
Sustainability Center, including:
o Commercial electric lawn mowers, and electric vehicle to collect compost
o Solar recharging station for electric equipment and vehicles.
o Solar gardens to provide renewable energy for community buildings
o Compost collection site
Community Kitchen: This kitchen will provide opportunities to use food before it is
directed to pre-composting and composting by:
o Source reduction
o Education for residents and school children
Enhanced and Expanded trail system and natural areas: Promotes walking/cycling and
scooter use while discouraging vehicle use; green spaces and enhanced vegetation
promote carbon sequestration
Rehabilitation of the Windsor #8 Ditch: Wetlands natural areas along ditch promote
carbon sequestration
Already accomplished, yet an expense that can be offset by metropolitan district
financing, is the plugging and abandonment of the five oil and gas wells on the
property, three of which were in operation. The climate change benefit of closing off
these wells cannot be overstated.
1 Note: Although not funded by the proposed metropolitan districts, the community will include a neighborhood
commercial center which may include a grocery store, coffee shop, restaurants and service businesses. This center
will be within walking, cycling or scooter distance for community residents.
II. City Initiative Supported: Nature in The City
The infrastructure and amenities detailed below will support the City’s “Nature in the
City” Initiative of providing a connected open space network accessible to the entire
community that provides a variety of experiences and functional habitat for people,
plants and wildlife.
Non-potable water system: This system is essential to be able to affordably create the
project’s expansive natural areas, as detailed below.
Expanded Trail System and Natural Areas: These trails and natural areas will be
adjacent to every home and provide residents with immediate access to the natural
environment, even for those whose mobility is impaired. With minor exceptions, each
home will back or front to open space. Waters’ Edge will have two times the amount
of natural areas than a typical subdivision. The trail system will connect to surrounding
neighborhoods, promoting interconnectivity and use by all citizens.
Enhanced Landscaping: Vegetative landscape will be focused on creating a quality
environment for humans and wildlife with native species; ongoing stewardship will be
performed by the proposed metropolitan districts. There will be edible plants (for both
humans and wildlife) throughout the community.
Rehabilitation of the Windsor #8 Ditch will feature:
o Creation of wetlands to improve water quality and provide habitat for wildlife
o High quality natural spaces
o Trails to link the region
o Transformation of an eyesore to an attractive and useful community amenity
o Storm water retention as an aesthetic amenity
III. City Plan and Initiative Supported: Mountain Vista Subarea
Plan and Urban Agriculture
The infrastructure funded and operated by the proposed metropolitan districts will
support many of the objectives of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, particularly its
emphasis on urban agriculture and elements of rural character. Among the amenities
that will be provided are:
Community Gardens and Orchards: These facilities will be designed with raised beds
and other features to facilitate their use by older residents. They will be spread in open
spaces throughout the community and connected by the trail system. Promotes local
food production.
Community Kitchen: Will be used to educate the community on nutrition, healthy
eating and sustainable agriculture.
Greenhouses and aquaponics facility: additional elements of urban agriculture
Redesigned #8 Ditch: regional trail system connects to “fingers” of open lands
Trail System: creates a network of paths as opposed to a more urban grid of sidewalks
IV. City Initiative Supported: Social Sustainability Strategic Plan
The infrastructure and programming funded and operated by the proposed metropolitan
districts will support the City’s Social Sustainability Strategic Plan including three of the six
dimensions of social sustainability including (1) Quality of Life, (2) Interconnectedness/Social
Cohesion, and (3) Maturity (personal growth). It also supports one of the four themes of Social
Sustainability as identified by the City - Community Wellness.
The infrastructure and amenities previously discussed all support the primary of goal of the
Waters’ Edge community which is to promote the health and wellness of its residents and
surrounding communities. To recap, those facilities and amenities include:
A health, wellness and senior activity center
An environmental sustainability center
A non-potable water system
A community kitchen
Community gardens and orchards
Community greenhouses and aquaponics facility
Redesigned and rehabilitated Windsor #8 Ditch including wetlands and trail with
regional connections
Trail system and expanded natural areas
Enhanced landscaping
The Waters’ Edge West community will provide extraordinary public benefits both to its
residents, but also to the community at large by enabling people to stay in their homes longer and
to be productive members of the Fort Collins community later into their lives. Accordingly, basic
infrastructure of the community is included in the metropolitan districts’ financing opportunities
to enable the extraordinary community design, the housing design and the breadth of facilities
noted above.
The infrastructure and the facilities and amenities will promote the health and wellness of
the community by:
Providing an environment that encourages engagement in physical activities that promote
wellness
Providing an environment that encourages and facilitates social connection and interaction
which is particularly important for older adults
Providing an environment that encourages active modes of transportation, such as walking,
cycling and electric scooters
Increasing access to healthy, locally produced food
Creating an environment where people with limited mobility and/or other disabilities can
experience nature without having to travel outside their neighborhood
Providing programming for older adults that supports ageing in place
Providing programming that supports social interaction and activities that promote
personal growth
Creating an aesthetically pleasing environment in which to live
Summary
Waters’ Edge Investments is asking the City of Fort Collins to be its partner in developing
an innovative and exceptional community by supporting and approving metropolitan districts to
provide the infrastructure, amenities and services described herein. We believe that the features
that the proposed districts will provide or will allow by offsetting other costs are truly
extraordinary and in sync with many of the City’s important initiatives as well as its operating
philosophy as expressed in the tag line “Innovate – Sustain – Connect”. This community cannot
be achieved without the financing and operating opportunities afforded by metropolitan districts.
If the City wants this type of development, and wants to achieve its reach goals, it must be willing
to give extraordinary developments the tools to achieve those outcomes.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
Proposal to the City of Fort Collins
for Metropolitan Districts
Waters’ Edge Investments LLLP
August 14, 2018
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
Waters’ Edge is designed for empty nesters,
active adults and seniors with the primary goal
being to facilitate healthy aging-in-place.
This cohort is an underserved and rapidly
expanding demographic in Northern Colorado.
Waters’ Edge is designed to meet their needs.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
Waters’ Edge incorporates the latest ideas and
thoughts with respect to achieving this goal –to
allow seniors to live heathy lives in their homes
as long as possible. To increase the period of
time when an individual is healthy mentally and
physically.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
Achieving our goal requires investment in
community design and house design along with
a higher level of services to each resident.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
Indirect Costs
The indirect costs to achieve the goals of Waters’
Edge have been identified in the Service Plan. The
costs to provide stepless entries, where possible,
and the costs to have every house be single-level
living have been estimated at $41,519,523. This
equates to a cost of $48,962 per house to
accommodate our residents’ needs.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
Enhanced Development Outcome
The benefit of delaying moving to independent senior living or assisted living is accomplished through:
Community design; access to nature, a walkable community with a senior center and other compelling public spaces onsite.
House design; single-level living, stepless entries and universal design.
Helpful services such as snow removal, irrigation control and front yard landscape maintenance.
Social connections; senior center, programming and activities.
This benefit has been quantified.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
The cost savings to a senior of delaying the move to independent senior or assisted living is significant. The savings to the Waters’ Edge community is huge. Estimated in Waters’ Edge at $3,561,000 to $7,140,000 annually, this would total, at the lower estimate, over $106 million over the 30 year term of the metro district bonds.
This cost saving, combined with the indirect costs give 3.5 times coverage for our request to use the metro district to offset basic infrastructure. And, no more than $18 million of the debt capacity of the $45 million debt limit can be used for basic infrastructure. This limitation ensures the lion’s share of district financing is for extraordinary infrastructure.
WATERS’ EDGE
FORT COLLINS, CO
How does Waters’ Edge measure up to Fort
Collins’ policy objectives? How will it deliver
public benefits through extraordinary
development outcomes? We will examine the
four focus areas.
Environmental Sustainability Outcomes
Waters’ Edge community design is focused on reducing off-site travel of its residents,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Our non-potable water system, which requires management by a district, not an
HOA, will reduce water consumption by 55% benefiting the residents by lower
operating costs and benefiting recreation and agriculture in Northern Colorado.
The system will also allow liquefied fertilization which, while saving residents’ money,
also reduces the runoff of fertilizers to our natural drainages and streams.
Our planned Sustainability Center will teach by example using solar power to
charge electric lawn mowers, while exhibiting the capped oil well pump.
Waters’ Edge resiliency is strengthened by incorporating the latest design of
Low Impact Development with bioretention facilities and permeable
pavement systems.
Rehabilitating the #8 Ditch, addressed in the next two slides, will
cleanup an existing environmental problem.
Critical Public Infrastructure
Waters’ Edge is contributing to regional transportation needs
with construction of a traffic signal at Turnberry and Country
Club Road and a contribution to resolving the vexing
intersection at Timberline and Vine. And, significantly, Waters’
Edge proposes to address an existing infrastructure issue with the
planned rehabilitation of the Windsor #8 Ditch. The “new” ditch
trail will connect to the planned regional trail system.
The Waters’ Edge developer has mastered the rehabilitation
of waterways, which the #8 Ditch sorely needs, as
exemplified in the following photos.
COMPARE THE CURRENT WINDSOR #8 DITCH TO MEADOWS
SANCTUARY, A PROJECT OF THE DEVELOPER IN JEFFERSON COUNTY.
Smart Growth Management
Waters’ Edge, with open space adjacent to nearly every lot, will be
a friendly place for pedestrians, bicyclists and even electric
scooters. The mixed use community design, with significant public
spaces, multiple housing types, on-site recreation and a small
commercial center exemplifies smart growth.
Waters’ Edge promotes social interaction through development
design, creating gathering places that attract people and
facilitate connections. Reducing the need for off-site travel
benefits the residents, by reducing costs and hassles, and benefits
the planet by reducing greenhouse gases.
The community design will encourage healthier living patterns
which is one of our primary goals.
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing. Waters’ Edge commitment to affordable
housing for seniors is a different way to look at the subject. The
City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan dated October 6, 2015
states: There is also a need for 55+ for-sale communities (page 44).
The Plan recognizes the need for housing for seniors to forestall the
move to independent living or assisted living.
City Reach Goals. Waters’ Edge meets the objective of City Plan,
the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan and incorporates many of the
aspects of Nature in the City, the aforementioned Affordable
Housing Plan, the Climate Action Plan by reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and the Social Sustainability Strategic Plan,
including three of the six dimensions of social sustainability;
(1)Quality of Life, (2) Interconnectedness/Social
Cohesion, and (3) Maturity (personal growth).
Public Private Partnership
Waters’ Edge Investments is asking the City of Fort Collins to be its
partner in developing an innovative and exceptional community
by supporting and approving metropolitan districts to provide
the infrastructure, amenities and services needed for such a
community . We believe that the features that the proposed
districts will provide or will allow by offsetting other costs are truly
extraordinary and in sync with many of the City’s important
initiatives as well as the three major themes expressed in City
Plan: “Innovate –Sustain –Connect”.
This community cannot be achieved without the financing and
operating opportunities afforded by metropolitan districts. If the
City wants this type of development, and wants to achieve
its reach goals, you must be willing to provide extraordinary
developments the tools to achieve those outcomes.
1
Waters’ Edge Metro District Request Preview
Tom Leeson
8-20-18
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Waters’ Edge Metro District
Service Plan?
2
Project Description
55+ Age Targeted
Senior friendly
design (age in
place)
Senior amenities
Enhanced open
space
235 acres ; 847 units
3
Policy Comparison –Key Provisions
4
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially To enable public benefit To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Ongoing for O&M 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
Residential and
Commercial 90% to 10%N/A
Public Improvements –Phase I
5
Phase I
Improvement Amount
Non-Potable Water System $3.1 Million
Artisan Workshop/Inventors Center $3.5 Million
Sustainability Center $1.5 Million
Landscaping $840 Thousand
"Basic" - site prep., infrastructure, etc.*$18 Million
Design, Engineering, PM, Contingency $4 Million
*Basic infrastructure is maximum of $18M between both Phase I and II.
Public Improvements –Phase II
6
*Basic infrastructure is maximum of $18M between both Phase I and II.
Phase II
Improvement Amount
Non-Potable Water System $2.6 Million
Senior Activities Center $7 Million
Rehabilitate Windsor No. 8 Ditch $2 Million
Landscaping $979 Thousand
"Basic" - site prep., infrastructure, etc.*$18 Million
Design, Engineering, PM, Contingency $6 Million
Policy Evaluation & Public Benefits
Environmental Sustainability
GHG Reduction
Water/Energy Conservation
Multimodal Transportation
Enhance Resiliency
Increase Renewable
Capacity
Critical Public Infrastructure
Existing significant infrastructure challenges
On-site
Off-site
Smart Growth Management
Increase density
Walkability/Pedestrian Infrastructure
Availability of Transit
Public Spaces
Mixed-Use
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing
Infill/Redevelopment
Economic Health Outcomes
7
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Waters’ Edge Metro District
Service Plan?
8
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks and Patrick Rowe
Date: August 20, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Metro District at Montava Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The developer of the proposed Montava Development has submitted a Metro District Service
Plan to support a proposed development of approximately 988.5 acres located in the northeast
portion of the community near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development is anticipated
to include 2,000 single family homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet
of office, 88,900 square feet of retail. The project intends to provide 10 percent of housing units
in a mix of for rent and for sale affordable housing. In addition, the project will deliver all units
as US Department of Energy Certified Zero Energy Ready. The presentation will provide a
review of the proposed metro district, based on the current state of staff’s analysis.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council
evaluation of the proposed Montava Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Montava is a multi-phase long-term development proposal located in the northeast portion of
Fort Collins. The project is located with the area covered by the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan
(MVSAP). The project anticipates delivery on several key principals of the MVSAP while also
providing a community that follows New Urbanist principles to promote environmentally
friendly habits, walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Metro District will support a large-scale (988.5 acres) planned development that
will extend the City into the largest remaining undeveloped section of the Growth Management
Area (GMA). The project anticipates constructing:
Approximately 4,400 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family);
A town center including 88,900 square feet of retail;
Approximately 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office;
Allocating land for natural areas, schools, and a community park;
A 40-acre organic farm; and
A variety of other public open spaces and trails.
The project is generally located between Mountain Vista on the south, Richards Lake Road on
the north, Timberline Road on the West and the train tracks on the east (see Attachment 2 –
Project Vicinity Map). The project, called Montava, “Mon” for mountains and “tava” the Ute
Indian work for “sun,” uses the MVSAP as its basis for design and development approach.
METRO DISTRICT
Montava has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-
7 (the “Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical public
infrastructure and other site costs reducing the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of seven Metro Districts working collaboratively to
deliver the proposed Montava development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over
the next 25 plus years and support an estimated population of 11,073. A few highlights about the
proposed Service Plan, include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $76 million in 2029, which would be
ten years into the phased development and not include full build-out
Aggregate Mill Levy – 60 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or
intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 20 Mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but not
limited to: (a) a non-potable irrigation system, and (b) a community-wide “in home”
water conservation program
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $203 million to cover a total a
portion of the estimated $325 million in public improvement costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation
and/or stormwater improvements
Public Improvements
The Service Plans anticipate using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the
maximum amount of $203 million to fund all or a portion of the following $325 million in public
improvements (details available in Exhibit E and Exhibit H of the Service Plan):
Earthwork – Up to approximately $21.5 million in earthwork and site preparation costs
associated with the proposed project, including significant grading associated with
stormwater management linked to the Cooper Slough
Streets – Up to approximately $105.3 million to fund local residential streets, alleys,
boulevards, and arterials both on- and off-site
Water Improvements – Up to $11.1 million in costs to construct potable water
infrastructure both on- and off-site supporting the project
Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Up to $15.7 million in costs associated with
constructing the sanitary sewer infrastructure both on- and off-site for the project
Non-potable Water – Up to $13.8 million to construct a non-potable irrigation system to
server the entire development – this infrastructure will significantly reduce the projects
need to acquire water rights and demand on potable water treatment facilities
Storm Sewer Improvements – Up to $10.2 million in costs to construct the main storm
sewer system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading is included
in the Earthwork amount above)
Recreation Facilities – Up to $8 million in costs to construct on- and off-site public
parks, open space, recreation facilities and/or services
Landscaping, Trails, Open Space and Farm Facilities – U to $44.2 million to install
landscaping, construct trails, open space, and farm facilities
Administrative, Miscellaneous, and Engineering – Up to $47 million in costs
associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing,
planning, and permitting the construction of the public improvements
Contingency – Up to $48 million in contingency assumes a 20 percent factor on top of
the costs estimates provide, which are only based on a conceptual design
Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not supplied
an estimate of non-basic costs. Non-basic costs are assumed to be costs that are not typical for a
development of the proposed project’s type and/or size. These costs therefore, are considered
extraordinary infrastructure costs. While no estimate of non-basic costs has been supplied, the
conceptual planning and design of the project has uncovered a number of extraordinary
development conditions, including:
Cooper Slough – The Cooper Slough creates several significant stormwater detention,
retention, and water quality issues across the site. These impacts are complicated by the
fact that the slough is not consolidated creating multiple entry points for water during a
storm event. The net result is the need to manage the stormwater on the site in a variety
of ways that deal with off-site conditions. This consumes a significant portion of land,
approximate 150 acres or 15 percent of the District area, reducing the potential return
from development and adding cost.
Utility Extension Requirements – The proposed District will be served by ELCO and
Boxelder Sanitary Sewer, both are smaller districts that do not have the necessary
distribution infrastructure in place to support the proposed development. A significant
cost will be associated with extending this infrastructure to serve the site.
Non-potable Irrigation System – The applicant intends to serve 85 percent of the
community’s irrigation need through a non-potable system. Constructing, operating, and
maintain this system will have significant costs – estimated at $13.8 million to construct.
Public Benefits
As required by the proposed new policy, the Service Plan will deliver several extraordinary
development outcomes that support several public benefits. The benefits and, where available,
their estimated value are described below (details available in Exhibit K of the Service Plan):
New Urbanist Development – The applicant has designed the project following several
key New Urbanist principles which promote environmentally friendly habits, create
walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types and job opportunities, including:
o Mixed-Use Town Center – Plans include a traditional town center with walkable
streets connecting it to surrounding neighborhoods, dense development
(commercial and multi-family residential), and community serving retail uses
(e.g., grocery, café and restaurants, etc.)
o Walkable Neighborhoods – The project is planned as a series of 5-minute walk
shed neighborhoods focused either on amenities along its edge (e.g., park,
schools, and gardens) or within its boundaries (e.g., playgrounds and pocket
parks, transportation facilities, etc.)
o Mixture of Housing Types – The project plan calls for three zones of intensity
within each neighborhood – each zone will provide a different density and
housing type
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Streets – The projects provides with a pattern of
development that encourages walking and provides sidewalk, trail, and bike lane
infrastructure to support that pattern of development
o Distributing Traffic – The project relies on a grid of streets as an organizing
principle – the street system creates walkable block sizes and distributes traffic
over a broader area reducing impacts and congestion on collectors and arterials
o Integration of Market Rate and Affordable Housing – The project plans to
distribute subsidized affordable housing through the community – historic
evidence indicates that integrating low-income households with a variety of
income levels reduces the negative impacts many low-income households
typically face and helps to overcome and break the cycle of poverty by removing
social barriers
Agri-Urban Development – The MVSAP calls for integration of agricultural uses with
development, the project will have a 40-acre organic farm owned by a Land Coop; the
District will fund the infrastructure, such as irrigation and water delivery, berms and wind
breaks, interior roads, green houses, pack house facility, and farm stand reducing the cost
of acquisition by the Land Coop
Energy and Water Conservation – The project includes a number of commitments to
reducing the energy and water consumption of the project below average consumption
levels of similar development types, including:
o Zero Energy Ready – The applicant has agreed to construct all 4,400 homes in the
proposed project in compliance with the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy
Ready and provide a ZERH rating for every home
o Residential Battery Storage – The applicant is working with Colorado State
University and the City of Fort Collins Utilities to create distributed storage by
providing a battery in every home
o Non-potable Irrigation – The applicant’s planned non-potable irrigation system
will meet 85 percent of all irrigation needs and significantly reduce the use of
potable water by the project – estimated cost of $8.0 million
o Community-wide In-Home Water Conservation Program – The applicant
proposed purchasing water from the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
through a master meter and “manage” individual user water consumption through
allocations across the project, this could enable the project to achieve a significant
reduction in overall water use
Parks & Recreation Facilities – The applicant is working with the City to deliver
several park and recreation facilities in the project that would serve the northeast region
of Fort Collins primarily and all residents
o Community Recreation Center – The applicant intends to partner with the City to
develop and construct a Community Recreation Center in the project
o Poudre Library District Facility – The applicant intends to partner with the
Poudre Library District to develop a library branch in the project
o Community Park – The applicant is working with the City to create an 80 plus
acre community park to serve the northeast region of the City
Natural Areas – The applicant is working to deliver natural areas through the project
including 150 acres of stormwater land that will be landscaped to create habitat and
function as a natural area providing both recreation facilities and Nature in the City
Multimodal Transportation Improvements – The applicant designed the project with
multimodal transportation principals
Affordable Housing – The applicant intends to deliver at least 10 percent of the
residential units as affordable housing with a mix of rental and ownership products –
partnerships are forming with the City (for a Land Bank parcel), Housing Catalyst, and
Land Trusts such as Elevations Land Trust, which serves the Front Range market
Housing Variety – The applicant intends to deliver a variety of housing types
Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not supplied
an estimate of the value of the above public benefits. However, the wide range of benefits and
partnerships will likely generate significant public benefit, that cannot be valued at this time.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues the currently adopted and proposed
policy is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1
Metro District Policy Comparison
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Montava does not comply with the City’s existing
policy. However, it represents an example of the type of project that would comply with the
proposed policy revisions to be considered by City Council on August 21, 2018.
POLICY EVALUATION & PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
The proposed update to the policy supports the formation of a Metro District regardless of
development type when a District delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits
should be: (1) aligned with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary
public benefits are provided by the Metro District or by the entity developing the Metro District
because Metro Districts exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be practically
provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable
basis. The Service Plan for the Montava Project delivers several proposed policy outcomes, as
described in the attached matrix (see Attachment 3).
Public Benefits Value vs. Maximum Debt Authorization
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 60 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Will Comply 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio 100% Residential 90% to 10%N/A
Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, an analysis to estimate the net
public benefit value cannot be completed at this time. Staff is continuing to work with the
applicant to obtain estimates of public benefits not delivered directly the metro district. These
inputs will help to complete an analysis to quantify the net public benefit of the proposed project.
Triple Bottom Line – Scan
An interdisciplinary staff team is preparing a Triple Bottom Line Scan of the proposed Service
Plan. The scan will compare the proposed development enabled by the Service Plan against the
existing use of the property – generally agriculture. In addition, the scan will compare the
proposed development against development that is consistent with the current zoning, which is
generally Employment and Industrial. These two scans will provide a range of the economic,
environmental, and social impacts of the project. This analysis will be complete and provided as
part of the materials present to City Council when the formally consider the Service Plan on
September 4, 2018.
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed policy requires all District proposals submit a Financial Plan to the City for
review. Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting information which may be
necessary, the City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability. This analysis is
still being prepared by Economic & Planning Systems and will be include in the materials
presented to City Council on September 4, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Policy Evaluation Matrix
4. Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-4
1
Montava Metro District Request Preview
Josh Birks
8-20-18
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Montava Metro District Service
Plan?
2
Project Description
25+ Year Multi Phase
Master Planned
Project
Increased density
4,400 Residential
Units
10% affordable
3
Policy Comparison –Key Provisions
4
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 60 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Will Comply 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio 100% Residential 90% to 10%N/A
Public Improvements
Improvement Description Estimated Cost
Earthwork Primarily grading $21.5 Million
Streets Local streets, alleys, boulevards, arterials, off-
site
$105.3 Million
Water Main infrastructure $11.1 Million
Sanitary Sewer Main infrastructure $15.7 Million
Non-potable Irrigation Irrigation System $13.8 Million
Storm Sewer Main infrastructure $10.2 Million
Recreation Facilities Parks, open space, rec. facilities $8.0 Million
Landscaping, Trails, Farm Trail system, 40-acre farm $44.2 Million
Administrative Engineering & Managing $47.0 Million
Contingency 20% of total cost $48.0 Million
Total $325.2 Million
5
Policy Evaluation & Public Benefits
Environmental Sustainability
GHG Reduction
Water/Energy Conservation
Multimodal Transportation
Enhance Resiliency
Increase Renewable
Capacity
Critical Public Infrastructure
Existing significant infrastructure challenges
On-site
Off-site
Smart Growth Management
Increase density
Walkability/Pedestrian Infrastructure
Availability of Transit
Public Spaces
Mixed-Use
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing
Workforce Housing
Infill/Redevelopment
Economic Health
Outcomes
6
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Montava Metro District Service
Plan?
7
I 8
§
ATTACHMENT 2 - MONTAYA METRO DISTRICT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
0 0::::
U)
ROJEC �--------���
---11 0 OCATION
C)
z ���R�l �C�H �A�R�D�S ,..,.;;;�=mw��===;�-�-
2000 1000 0 - -2000 ---
scale 1"=2000' feet
N-I w-1-
<( 1--
U) 0:::: w-r------1-z
FORT COWNS, CO DA TE: JULY 2018 JOB NO. 1230.0001.00 SHEET 1 OF 1
748 Whalers Way, Suite 200 Fort Colline, Colorado Phone: 970.228.0557
il!, ______________________ rax:_e_10.22&_.0204 __ _
Attachment 3 ‐ Policy Matrix
GHG Reduction
100% Zero Energy
Ready;
Distributed Storage
Increase Density Yes, New
Urbanist Affordable Housing
At least 10% of
units;
Approx. 440
units
Water/Energy
Conservation
100% Zero Energy
Ready;
Distributed Storage;
Non‐potable irrigation
system;
Community‐wide
water conservation
program
Walkability/
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Friendly
design principles
Workforce Housing N/A
Multimodal
Transportation
Design principles
applied
Availability of
Transit N/A Infill/
Redevelopment N/A
Enhance
Resiliency Cooper Slough Public Space
Pocket Parks;
Mixed‐Use Open
Space; 150 Acres
natural area
Increase
Renewable
Capacity
Distributed Storage Mixed‐Use Town Center;
Housing Variety
Off‐Site
Contribution
to Regional
Transportation
System Economic Health N/A
PUBLIC BENEFIT/POLICY ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Environmental Sustainability Critical Public Infrastructure Smart Growth Management Strategic Priorities
On‐Site
Transportati
on system
extension;
Cooper
Slough
Improvemen
ts
1
CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
FOR
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared by:
White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Professional Corporation
2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000
Centennial, CO 80122
Submitted On: July 20, 2018
Approved On: ____________, 2018
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6
A. Purpose and Intent. ............................................................................................................................ 6
B. Need for the Districts. ....................................................................................................................... 6
C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan. .................................................................. 6
II. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 7
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ................................................................................................ 10
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS &
ASSESSED VALUATION ........................................................................................................................ 11
A. Project and Planned Development. ................................................................................................. 11
B. Public Benefits. ............................................................................................................................... 12
C. Assessed Valuation. ........................................................................................................................ 12
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ......................................................................... 12
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE .......................................................................................................... 12
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS ........................................................................... 12
A. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations............................. 13
1. Eminent Domain Restriction ....................................................................................................... 13
2. Fee Limitation ............................................................................................................................. 13
3. Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 13
4. Fire Protection Restriction .......................................................................................................... 14
5. Public Safety Services Restriction .............................................................................................. 14
6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ....................................................................... 14
7. Golf Course Construction Restriction ......................................................................................... 14
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction ............................................................................. 14
9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation ................................................................................... 14
10. Sub-district Restriction ........................................................................................................... 15
11. Initial Debt Limitation ............................................................................................................ 15
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation ............................................................................................ 15
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ........................................................... 15
A. Development Standards .................................................................................................................. 16
B. Contracting ...................................................................................................................................... 16
C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance ................................................................................................. 17
D. Equal Employment and Discrimination .......................................................................................... 17
3
E. Public Art Requirement .................................................................................................................. 17
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT ....................................................................................... 17
A. Financial Plan .................................................................................................................................. 18
B. Mill Levies ...................................................................................................................................... 18
1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ..................................................................................................... 18
2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.................................................................. 18
3. Operating Mill Levy........................................................................................................................ 18
4. Assessed Value and Mill Levies ..................................................................................................... 19
5. Gallagher Adjustments .................................................................................................................... 19
6. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges .......................................................................................................... 19
7. Refunding Debt ............................................................................................................................... 19
8. Maximum Debt Authorization ........................................................................................................ 20
C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount ........................................................... 20
D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification .................................................................. 20
E. Disclosure to Purchasers ................................................................................................................. 20
F. External Financial Advisor ............................................................................................................. 20
G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers ........................................................................................................ 21
H. Security for Debt ............................................................................................................................. 21
I. TABOR Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 21
J. Districts’ Operating Costs ............................................................................................................... 22
X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 22
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority......................................................................................................... 22
B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. ...................................................................................................... 22
C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. ............................................................................ 22
D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. .............................................................. 23
E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. ................................................................................ 23
F. Regional Mill Levy Term. .............................................................................................................. 23
G. Completion of Regional Improvements. ......................................................................................... 23
H. City Authority to Require Imposition. ............................................................................................ 23
I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. ................................................................ 23
J. Gallagher Adjustment. .................................................................................................................... 24
XI. CITY FEES ..................................................................................................................................... 24
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 24
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS ..................................................................................................................... 24
4
A. General ............................................................................................................................................ 24
B. Report Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 24
C. Reporting of Significant Events ...................................................................................................... 25
D. Failure to Submit ............................................................................................................................. 26
XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................... 26
XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................... 26
XVI. DISSOLUTION .............................................................................................................................. 27
XVII. SANCTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 27
XVIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 28
XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ................................................................................................... 28
5
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries
EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map
EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries
EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT E Public Improvements and Matrix of Ownership
EXHIBIT F Regional Improvements
EXHIBIT G Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT H Public Improvement Cost Estimates
EXHIBIT I Public Improvements Maps
EXHIBIT J Financial Plan
EXHIBIT K Public Benefits
6
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Intent.
The Districts, which are intended to be independent units of local government
separate and distinct from the City, are governed by this Service Plan, the Special District
Act and other applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provided for by State law,
City Code or this Service Plan, the Districts' activities are subject to review and approval by
the City Council only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under
C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act.
It is intended that the Districts will provide all of the Public Improvements for the
Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the Districts.
The primary purpose of the Districts will be to finance the construction of these Public
Improvements by the issuance of Debt.
It is intended that this Service Plan also authorizes the Districts to pay a portion of the cost of the
Regional Improvements as part of ensuring that development and those that benefit from
development pay for the associated costs.
The Districts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance
services except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
It is the intent of the Districts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt
incurred or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of
all Debt, and if the Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating
or maintenance functions, to retain only the power necessary to impose and collect the taxes or
Fees authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions.
It is intended that the Districts shall comply the provisions of this Service Plan and
that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section
XVIII of this Service 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 consider it desirable, feasible or practical to 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.
7
The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the Districts to provide
for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of
the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts. All Debt is
expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum
Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties and at a tax mill levy no higher than
the Maximum Debt Mill Levy for commercial and residential properties, and/or repaid by Fees,
as long as such Fees are not imposed upon or collected from Taxable Property owned or
occupied by an End User for the purpose of creating a capital cost payment obligation as further
described in Section VII.A.11. Debt which is issued within these parameters and, as further
described in the Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee
burdens to support the servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge
of the Debt.
II. DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized
format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding the Districts’ Debt
Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. The Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy does not include
any Regional Mill Levy that the Districts may levy.
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that the
Districts may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, not to exceed fifty
(50) mills.
Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use
application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public
improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service
Area.
Board or Boards: means the duly constituted Board or Boards of Directors of the
Districts, or the boards of directors of all or the District, in the aggregate.
Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial
obligations for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem
property tax mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not
include intergovernmental agreements pledging the collection and payment of property
taxes or Fees 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.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality. Any provision
in this Service Plan requiring “City” approval shall be deemed to require the City
Council’s prior written approval, exercised in its sole discretion.
8
City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Any exercise
of approval or other power by the City Council under this Service Plan shall be deemed
to be exercised by the City Council in its sole discretion.
City Manager: means the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property within the
Districts for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan.
Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual
rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property.
Developer Obligation: means any agreement executed by a District for the purpose of
borrowing funds from any Developer or related party developing or selling land within
the Service Area or who is a member of a Board.
District: means any one of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7, individually,
organized under and governed by this Service Plan.
Districts: means the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7, collectively, organized
under and governed by this Service Plan.
End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the Districts,
who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes
and/or Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property
owner or commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that
constructs homes or commercial structures is not an End User.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (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.
Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges the Districts are authorized to
impose and collect under this Service Plan.
9
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan
which is prepared by an External Financial Advisor in accordance with the requirements
of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements may be financed; (b)
how the Debt may be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from
property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District
Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course. In the event the Financial
Plan is not prepared by an External Financial Advisor, the Financial Plan is to be
accompanied by a letter of support from an External Financial Advisor. This Financial
Plan is 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.
Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be
added to the District Boundaries after the Districts organization, which property is legally
described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in the
map attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference.
Initial District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District Boundary
Map.
Initial District Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto
as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the Districts are permitted to issue as
set forth in Section IX.B.8 of this Service Plan.
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which the
Districts’ Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for
residential use. This maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31
of the year this Service Plan is approved by City Council.
Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in
this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public
Improvements.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties
in the Service Area under an Approved Development Plan.
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the
Planned Development commonly referred to as “Montava”.
10
Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the Districts are
authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to
serve the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the Districts, except as specifically limited in
Section VI of this Service Plan. Public Improvements may include, without limitation,
the improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit E attached hereto and
incorporated by reference. Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements.
Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City
for funding, in whole or part, by a Regional Mill Levy levied by the Districts, including,
without limitation, the public improvements described in Exhibit F attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill tax imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating
and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and
overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this
Service Plan.
Service Area: means the property within the Initial District Boundaries and the property
in the Inclusion Area Boundaries.
Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as
amended.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by
the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any
other applicable law.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the Initial District
Boundaries and within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the District
Boundaries that will subject to the ad valorem taxes imposed by the Districts.
Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit G and incorporated by reference
depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding it.
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION
The area of the Initial District Boundaries includes approximately 10 acres and the total
area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately 988.5 acres. A
legal description and map of the Initial District Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A and
Exhibit B, respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are
11
attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the Districts’
boundaries may expand or contract from time to time as the Districts undertake inclusions or
exclusions pursuant to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service
Plan. The location of the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as Exhibit G.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION
A. Project and Planned Development.
The Districts are intended to enable the Montava Vision and Master Plan (the “Master
Plan”). The Master Plan is the result of an unprecedented collaborative effort including: public
meetings, a weeklong public charrette, and extensive City Staff involvement. The foundation of
the 860-acre development is the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (the MVSAP), City Plan, and the
Climate Action Plan Montava will be a unique community - the name itself is a combination of
“Mon” for our ever present mountains and the Ute Indian word “tava” which means “sun”.
“Mountain Sun” is both a reflection of the history and beauty of our area, and a commitment to
renewable energy which is a foundational principal of the project.
Montava is planned as an extension of the City by providing a town center connected to
surrounding development with community commercial and retail services including grocery, full
and limited service restaurants, coffee and juice bar, service oriented business like
insurance/hair/legal, City Recreation Center, Poudre Library, and many more uses. The
transportation plan will tie the Project into the surrounding community including downtown Fort
Collins. Any employment that is enabled by the Project will provide opportunity for anyone in
the surrounding areas. Montava is a community that will serve all of Fort Collins. In a study
commissioned by the developer of the Project, Bob Gibbs Consulting projects by 2022 Montava
will have statistical market demand of up to 88,900 square feet and new retail development
producing up to $27.5 million in sales. At full build out, total additional demand could grow to
218,000 and $70.1 million in gross sales annually.
The Project is currently anticipated to contain between 200,000 and 400,000 sf of office
for employment opportunity, and between 70-100 acres of light and green industrial
development, and residential development including approximately 2,000 single family homes
and 2,400 multi-family units in a wide variety of types, sizes, and configurations. The
anticipated population at build-out, which is anticipated to occur over 25+ years, is
approximately 11,073 persons. The total assessed value at 5 years (2024) is estimated to be
$36,593,000, and the total assessed value at 10 years (2029) is estimated to be $76,202,500. The
total City tax paid in 5 years is estimated to be $968,739 and total City tax paid in 10 years is
estimated to be $3,643,555.
Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the
development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the Districts. Any such
approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan.
12
B. Public Benefits.
The organization of the Districts is intended to enable the Project to deliver a number of
extraordinary public benefits, including: smart growth management through New Urbanist
principles, Argi-Urban development, energy and water conservation, community services, park
and school integration, natural areas integration, multi-modal transportation, Zero Energy Ready
Homes construction, affordable housing, housing variety, innovation, and employment
integration. The purpose of the Districts is to provide for the planning, design, acquisition,
construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements necessary to
enable Project to develop as planned. A detailed description of the extraordinary public benefits
of the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
C. Assessed Valuation.
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately zero $0.00 for
purposes of this Service Plan and, at build out, is expected to be One Hundred Forty Five Million
Dollars ($145,000,000). These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably discharge the
Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
Other than the property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the Districts shall not include
any property into the Districts without the City’s approval and in compliance with the Special
District Act.
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
The Districts’ Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible
electors” of the Districts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time,
the End Users who are eligible electors may assume direct electoral control of the Districts’
Boards as development within the Service Area progresses. The Districts shall not enter into any
agreement by which the End Users’ electoral control of the Boards is removed or diminished.
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS
The Districts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the
Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the
Service Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other
applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions,
restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan.
If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers
or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such
powers and authority shall be deemed to be a part hereof and available to or exercised by the
Districts upon prior resolution approval of the City Council approving the exercise of such
13
powers or authority by the Districts. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a
Service Plan Amendment.
A. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations
The Districts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public
Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the
Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as
hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall
constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all
remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan:
1. Eminent Domain Restriction
The Districts shall not exercise its statutory power of eminent domain without first
obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the Districts’
exercise of its eminent domain power 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 subdivision of the State as conferred
by the Special District Act.
2. Fee Limitation
All Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, shall
be authorized to be imposed by the Districts upon all property within the Districts’
boundaries only if such Fees are due and payable no later than upon the issuance of a
building permit by the City. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, this Fee limitation
shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation, maintenance, repair or
replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of the Districts, nor shall
this Fee limitation apply if the majority of the Districts’ Boards are composed of End
Users.
3. Operations and Maintenance
The primary purpose of the Districts is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop and finance the Public Improvements. The Districts shall dedicate
the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners’
association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City
Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The
Districts are specifically authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the
Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another
appropriate governmental entity. The Districts shall also be specifically authorized to
conduct operations and maintenance functions related to the Public Improvements
that are not provided by the City or other governmental entity, or to the extent that the
Districts’ proposed operational and maintenance functions included services or
14
activities that exceed those provided by the City or other governmental entity.
Additionally, the Districts shall be authorized to operate and maintain any part or all
of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or
another appropriate governmental entity until such time that the Districts dissolve.
4. Fire Protection Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services,
unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire,
construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire hydrants and
related improvements installed as part of the water system shall not be limited by this
subsection.
5. Public Safety Services Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services.
However, the Districts may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish
security services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction
The Districts shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United
States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City
Manager. This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the
Districts to the United States Government or the State.
7. Golf Course Construction Restriction
Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to
coordinate the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the
Districts shall not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant
to an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain television relay and translation
facilities and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street
construction project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior
written approval from the City Manager.
9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation
15
The Districts shall not exercise any City sales and use tax exemption in the City
Code.
10. Sub-district Restriction
The Districts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act
without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
11. Initial Debt Limitation
On or before the effective date of approval by the City of (a) an Approved
Development Plan that secures the Public Benefits described in Section IV.B of this
Service Plan, and/or (b) by an intergovernmental agreement between the Districts and
the City further securing the delivery of the Public Benefits described in Section
IV.B, as necessary, the Districts shall not: (i) issue any Debt; nor (ii) impose the Debt
Mill Levy for the payment of Debt by direct imposition or by transfer of funds from
the operating fund to the Debt service funds; nor (iii) impose and collect any Fees
used for the purpose of repayment of Debt.
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the issuing 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 C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the
designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax-
exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate
by us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high
yield securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the
Debt], including maturities and early redemption provisions, is
reasonable considering the financial circumstances of the District.
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be
constructed and/or installed by the Districts. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public
Improvements may vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set
forth in Exhibit H, including any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to
serve the Planned Development, are approximately Three Hundred Twenty Five Million One
Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in 2018
16
dollars. The cost estimates are based upon preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and
reviews of the Public Improvements and include all construction cost estimates together with
estimates of costs such as land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other
associated expenses. Maps of the anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public
Improvements are attached hereto as Exhibit I. Changes in the Public Improvements or costs,
which are approved by the City in an Approved Development Plan, shall not constitute a Service
Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be
bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and approving the Approved Development Plan and the
Approved Development Plan shall supersede the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and
definition of Public Improvements.
The design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements
will be determined by the Districts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned
Development and the availability of funding sources. The Districts may, in their discretion, phase
the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer,
delay, reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction,
completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or
determinations shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. The Districts shall also be
permitted to allocate costs between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed
necessary in their discretion.
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to
certain operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following
requirements:
A. Development Standards
The Districts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in
accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental
entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The Districts directly, or indirectly through any
Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable
permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to 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 constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt 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.
B. Contracting
The Districts shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and
construction contracting.
17
C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance
The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the Districts from the
Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an
independent MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for
improvements. Land, easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free
and clear of all liens, encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City
Manager prior to conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed,
shall be conveyed at no cost to the City, shall include an ALTA title policy issued to the City,
shall meet the environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance
prerequisites.
D. Equal Employment and Discrimination
In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the Districts shall
not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging,
promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing
provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the Districts to accomplish the purposes of
this Service Plan.
E. Public Art Requirement
The Districts shall initiate and implement a public art program as currently set forth in
Article XII of City Municipal Code Chapter 23, as amended, or any similar ordinances hereafter
adopted by the City Council.
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements. This section also describes the
Districts’ obligation to help finance certain Regional Improvements.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the Districts
shall not be authorized to impose any taxes and Fees for any purpose unless and until (a) the
District and/or the Developer has obtained an Approved Development Plan that secures the
Public Benefits described in Section IV.B of this Service Plan, or (b) the City and Districts, at the
City’s option, have entered into an intergovernmental agreement securing the delivery of the
Public Benefits described in Section IV.B 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 as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan.
18
A. Financial Plan
The Districts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference,
reflects the Districts’ anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in
support of the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues
flowing to the Districts derived from Districts mill levies, Fees imposed by the Districts, specific
ownership taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan is based
on economic, political and industry conditions as they 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 they
are in compliance with this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of
this Section IX.
Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of
Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development
assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial
Plan anticipates that the District will acquire, construct, and complete all Public Improvements
needed to serve the Service Area.
The Financial Plan demonstrates that the Districts will have the financial ability to
discharge all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore,
the Districts will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an
opinion as to whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the Districts at the time of
issuance.
B. Mill Levies
It is anticipated that the Districts will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill
Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries. In doing so, the following shall apply:
1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum
The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum, which is sixty (60) mills, subject to the Gallagher Adjustments below.
2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies
The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum.
3. Operating Mill Levy
The Districts may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to sixty (60) mills until the
District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, the
19
District’s Operating Mill Levy shall not exceed twenty (20) mills at any point, subject
to the Gallagher Adjustments below.
4. Assessed Value and Mill Levies
At such time as the Debt is equal to or less than fifty percent (50%) of the Districts’
assessed valuation of Taxable Property, either on the date of issuance or at any time
thereafter, the Debt Mill Levy to be imposed to pay on the Debt, shall not be subject
to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum and may be unlimited as to rate and may be
levied at the rate necessary to pay the Debt service on such Debt, provided however
that the District shall not issue additional Debt that would cause the aggregate Debt to
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Districts’ Taxable Property then assessed value. For
the purposes of the forgoing, the Districts may provide that such Debt shall remain
secured by such unlimited mill levy, notwithstanding any subsequent change in the
Districts’ Debt to assessed valuation ratio. All Debt issued by the Districts must
otherwise be issued in compliance with the requirements of the Special District Act,
this Service Plan and all other applicable State law.
5. Gallagher Adjustments
In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable
Property changes after January 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit,
cut or abatement, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill
Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be
increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be
determined by the District’s Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the
actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced
nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. 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.
6. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges
Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that
exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and
shall not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material
modification has been approved by a Service Plan Amendment.
7. Refunding Debt
The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding
purposes if: (1) a majority of the issuing District’s Board is composed of End Users
and have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such
refunding will result in a net present value savings as set forth in C.R.S. Section 11-
20
56-101 et seq.
8. Maximum Debt Authorization
The Districts anticipate approximately Three Hundred Twenty Five Million One
Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in
project costs in 2018 dollars as set forth in Exhibit H, and anticipate issuing
approximately Two Hundred Three Million Dollars ($203,000,000) in Debt to pay
such costs as set forth in Exhibit J, which Debt issuance amount shall be the amount
of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts shall not issue Debt 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 H 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 requiring a Service Plan Amendment so long as
increases are reasonably related to the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit E
and any Approved Development Plan.
C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount
The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is
issued. The maximum interest rate on any Debt is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent
(12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%). Debt, when issued,
will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other
applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities.
D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification
The Districts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on
the market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payed by
the Districts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The Districts shall provide this written
opinion to the City before issuing any Debt based on it.
E. Disclosure to Purchasers
The Districts will use reasonable efforts to assure that all Developers provide written
notice to all purchasers of property in the Districts notifying them of the Districts’ existing mill
levies, the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and of the Districts’ authority to impose
and collect Fees. The form of notice shall be filed with the City prior to the initial issuance of
the Debt of the District imposing the mill levy which is the subject of the Maximum Debt Mill
Levy Imposition Term.
F. External Financial Advisor
21
An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the issuing District to provide a
written opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the issuing District once
the total amount of Debt exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial
Advisor is to provide advice to the issuing District’s Board regarding the proposed terms and
whether Debt conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the District,
the projected tax base increase in the District, the security offered and other considerations as
may be identified by the Advisor. The issuing District shall include in the transcript of any Bond
transaction, or other appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed
letter from the External Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the
Debt, stating the Advisor’s opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption
feature, couponing, credit spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details
of the proposed Debt serve the best interest of the issuing District.
Debt shall not be undertaken by the Districts if found to be unreasonable by the External
Financial Advisor.
G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers
District Debt shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
“By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees
and consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of
the principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the
resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and
in the Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a
Debt of the City of Fort Collins”
Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal
and interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the
offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property
within the Service Area.
H. Security for Debt
The Districts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the
indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed
as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the Districts’ obligations; nor shall anything in
the Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City
in the event of default by the Districts in the payment of any such obligation.
I. TABOR Compliance
The Districts shall comply with the provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article
X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”). In the discretion of the Boards, the Districts
may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services,
22
and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain under
the control of the District’s Board.
J. Districts’ Operating Costs
The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and
administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial
operations, are anticipated to be $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 $100,000.
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy not to exceed ten (10) mills as
set forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as other revenues legally available to the District.
X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The District shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to
the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the Districts shall impose
a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries under the
following terms:
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five
(5) mills as part of the Districts’ initial TABOR election.
B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition.
The Districts shall impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills
within one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the Districts requesting the
imposition of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed.
C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements.
Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be
constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to
property owners within the Service Area. The City shall require that planned developments that
(i) are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional Improvement also
impose a Regional Milly Levy, to the extent possible.
23
D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.
If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public
improvements that the Districts would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re-
design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law.
E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues.
Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as
follows:
1. Intergovernmental Agreement
If the City and the Districts have executed an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill
Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement;
2. No Intergovernmental Agreement
If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the Districts and the City, then
the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the
City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating,
redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users
of the Districts as prioritized and determined by the City.
F. Regional Mill Levy Term.
The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25)
years from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first
imposed.
G. Completion of Regional Improvements.
All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25)
year Regional Mill Levy term.
H. City Authority to Require Imposition.
The City’s authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy
shall expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the Districts first imposes
a Debt Mill Levy.
I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.
The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the
Aggregate Mill Levy.
24
J. Gallagher Adjustment.
In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after January 1,
2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy may
be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be
determined by the Districts in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues
generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result
of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the
ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating
assessed valuation.
XI. CITY FEES
The Districts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code.
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS
All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those
pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term
and Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to
approve this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall
not be set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment;
and (ii) are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or
governmental powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section
903, and are also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable
non-bankruptcy law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under
Bankruptcy Code Section 943(b)(6).
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS
A. General
The Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no
later than September 1st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating
the Districts has been issued. They Districts shall be permitted to file a consolidated annual
report.
B. Report Requirements
Unless waived by the City Manager, the Districts’ annual report must include the
following in the Annual Report:
1. Narrative
25
A narrative summary of the progress of the Districts in implementing its Service
Plan for the report year.
2. Financial Statements
Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the
Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the 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 operation (i.e., revenue
and expenditures) for the report year.
3. Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a
summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the Districts in development of
improvements in the report year.
4. Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a
summary of financial obligations of the Districts at the end of the report year,
including the amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new
District Debt issued in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable
Property within the Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current
total Districts mill levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5. Other Information
Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Manager.
C. Reporting of Significant Events
The annual report shall include information as to any of the following that occurred
during the report year:
1. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District boundaries as of
December 31 of the report year.
2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either
entered into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year.
3. Copies of the Districts’ rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to
the Districts’ rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year.
26
4. A summary of any litigation which involves the Districts’ Public
Improvements as of December 31 of the report year.
5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the Districts that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report
year.
6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the Districts, which continue
beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
7. Any inability of the Districts to pay their obligations as they come due, in
accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a
ninety (90) day period.
D. Failure to Submit
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the Districts’ Boards 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 Clerk may constitute a material modification of the
Service Plan, at the discretion of the City Manager.
XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some
instances. The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts to
provide required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the
need for numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and
facilities making up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations
or dimensions of the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development
needs consistent with the then-current Approved Development Plans for the Project. Any action
of the Districts which is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan
Amendment as provided in in Section XV below or any other applicable provision of this
Service Plan, shall be deemed to be a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise
expressly provided in this Service Plan. All other departures from the provisions of this Service
Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether such departures are a material
modification under this Service Plan or the Special District Act.
XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action
of the Districts that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless
otherwise provided in this Service Plan.
27
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a
Service Plan Amendment include, without limitation:
1. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to
the taxpayers of the Districts;
2. Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or
acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement,
service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a
facility required by the Service Plan;
4. Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this
Service Plan.
Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation
changes in quantities of improvements, facilities or equipment; immaterial cost differences; and
actions expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
XVI. DISSOLUTION
Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which the
Districts were created have been accomplished, the Districts shall file a petition in district court
for dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until
the Districts have provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness
and other financial obligations as required pursuant to State law.
XVII. SANCTIONS
Should the Districts 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 requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under the Special
Districts Act, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it
deems appropriate:
1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act;
2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other
administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the Districts’
development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of
services;
3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the Districts are in default; or
28
4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking injunctive relief against the Districts, to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law.
XVIII. CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2),
establishes that:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service
Area to be served by the Districts;
2. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts is inadequate for
present and projected needs;
3. The Districts is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service
Area; and
4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Districts 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.
29
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH,
RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF
LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32 WHENCE THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER BEARS S00°29'18"E A DISTANCE OF 5289.91 FEET AND CONSIDERING ALL
BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SECTION LINE S00°29'18"E A DISTANCE
OF 50.01 FEET;
THENCE S89°35'02"E A DISTANCE OF 973.88 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S89°35'02"E A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET;
THENCE S00°24'58"W A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET;
THENCE N89°35'02"W A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET;
THENCE N00°24'58"E A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 10.00 ACRES (435,600 SQUARE FEET) MORE OR LESS AND IS SUBJECT TO
ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS NOW IN USE OR OF RECORD.
30
EXHIBIT B
Initial District Boundary Map
31
EXHIBIT C
Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 32, AND THE WEST HALF OF SECTION
33, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND THE NORTH
HALF OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 32 WHENCE THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER BEARS S00°29'18"E A DISTANCE OF 5289.91 FEET AND CONSIDERING ALL BEARINGS
HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE S89°35'02"E A DISTANCE OF 974.67 FEET;
THENCE S00°24'58"W A DISTANCE OF 710.00 FEET;
THENCE S89°35'02"E A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET;
THENCE N00°24'58"E A DISTANCE OF 710.00 FEET;
THENCE S89°35'02"E A DISTANCE OF 1003.43 FEET;
THENCE S89°53'24"E A DISTANCE OF 1773.90 FEET;
THENCE S00°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 472.51 FEET;
THENCE S89°53'24"E A DISTANCE OF 864.73 FEET;
THENCE S00°16'21"E A DISTANCE OF 1513.06 FEET;
THENCE S89°59'54"E A DISTANCE OF 397.54 FEET;
THENCE S00°20'11"E A DISTANCE OF 380.10 FEET;
THENCE S89°59'31"E A DISTANCE OF 397.12 FEET;
THENCE S00°16'21"E A DISTANCE OF 2906.93 FEET;
THENCE S00°06'47"E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
THENCE S89°47'00"E A DISTANCE OF 945.36 FEET;
THENCE S00°00'50"E A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET;
THENCE N89°59'10"E A DISTANCE OF 1022.26 FEET;
THENCE S84°33'41"E A DISTANCE OF 150.45 FEET;
THENCE S00°31'28"E A DISTANCE OF 220.49 FEET;
THENCE S19°10'52"E A DISTANCE OF 716.33 FEET;
THENCE S06°01'40"E A DISTANCE OF 296.08 FEET;
THENCE S00°30'00"W A DISTANCE OF 783.98 FEET;
THENCE N88°21'45"W A DISTANCE OF 92.96 FEET;
THENCE S86°38'10"W A DISTANCE OF 1900.01 FEET;
THENCE S68°38'10"W A DISTANCE OF 99.99 FEET;
THENCE S55°58'15" W A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET;
THENCE S36°58'15"W A DISTANCE OF 199.96 FEET;
THENCE S89°38'15"W A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET;
THENCE S00°06'47"W A DISTANCE OF 139.93 FEET;
THENCE N89°11'06"W A DISTANCE OF 2627.63 FEET;
THENCE N00°23'56"E A DISTANCE OF 2580.05 FEET;
THENCE N89°53'45W A DISTANCE OF 2639.82 FEET;
THENCE S89°44'44"W A DISTANCE OF 1339.28 FEET;
THENCE N01°15'55"W A DISTANCE OF 1062.88 FEET;
THENCE S89°50'10"W A DISTANCE OF 721.52 FEET;
THENCE N01°15'28"W A DISTANCE OF 1589.29 FEET;
THENCE N89°50'10"E A DISTANCE OF 2060.57 FEET;
THENCE N00°29'18"W A DISTANCE OF 2644.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 988.49 ACRES (43,058,529.06 SQUARE FEET) MORE OR LESS AND IS
SUBJECT TO ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS NOW IN USE OR OF RECORD.
32
EXHIBIT D
Inclusion Area Boundary Map
33
EXHIBIT E
Public Improvements
Description of Public Improvements
a. Streets.
On-site and off-site streets, curbs, gutters, culverts, other drainage facilities, sidewalks, bridges,
parking facilities, paving, lighting, grading, utility relocation necessitated by public rights-of-
way, monumentation, signage, snow removal, streetscapes and related landscaping and irrigation
improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land
and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities.
b. Water.
On-site and off-site potable and non-potable water supply improvements, including water rights,
storage facilities, transmission and distribution lines, pumping stations, fire hydrants, meters,
facilities, equipment, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all
necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions
of and improvements to such facilities.
c. Storm and Sanitary Sewer.
On-site and Off-site storm and sanitary sewer collection and transmission improvements,
including storage facilities, collection mains and laterals, pumping stations, lift stations,
transmission lines, storm sewer, flood and surface drainage facilities and systems, and related
landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant
facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities.
d. Parks and Recreation.
On-site and off-site public park, open space and recreation facilities or services, including parks,
bike paths, pedestrian ways, public plazas and courtyards, water features, signage,
monumentation, art, gardens, farm facilities, orchards, picnic areas, recreation facilities,
playground equipment/areas, park shelters, public area landscaping and weed control,
streetscaping, outdoor lighting of all types, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements,
together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements,
and extensions of and improvements to such facilities.
34
EXHIBIT F
Regional Improvements
35
EXHIBIT G
Vicinity Map
36
EXHIBIT H
Public Improvement Cost Estimates
JOB NO.DATE:BY:
1230.0001.00 6/27/2018 JAZ
No.Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
$11,000,000
$21,499,312
$105,255,350
$15,732,500
$11,081,500
$13,814,500
$10,286,290
$8,000,000
$44,215,395
$240,884,847
$48,176,969
$36,132,727
$325,194,543
This is a conceptual opinion of cost and supplied only as a guide. TST is not responsible for fluctuation in costs of material,
labor or unforeseen contingencies.
Total Infrastructure Cost
EARTHWORK
NONPOTABLE WATER (ONSITE & OFFSITE)
ADMINISTRATIVE & MISCELLANEOUS
Contingency (20% of Costs)
Engineering / Survey / C. M. (15% of Costs)
CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF COST
PROJECT:
Montava Metropolitan Districts
Additional Costs
Construction Costs
WATER (ONSITE & OFFSITE)
LANDSCAPING, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARM FACILITIES
STORM SEWER (ONSITE & OFFSITE)
RECREATION FACILITIES
SANITARY SEWER (ONSITE & OFFSITE)
STREETS (ONSITE & OFFSITE)
37
EXHIBIT I
Public Improvements Maps
38
EXHIBIT J
Financial Plan
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
1 Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan
2050 Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds
2082
SP#1 SP#2 SP#3 SP#4 SP#5 SP#6 [All Plans]
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Available Available Available Available Available Available Available
YEAR Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 230,000 0 0 0 0 0 230,000
2021 504,915 0 0 0 0 0 504,915
2022 904,411 0 0 0 0 0 904,411
2023 1,421,428 0 0 0 0 0 1,421,428
2024 1,674,813 205,000 0 0 0 0 1,879,813
2025 2,078,593 542,656 0 0 0 0 2,621,249
2026 2,203,309 889,802 0 0 0 0 3,093,111
2027 2,203,309 1,522,869 0 0 0 0 3,726,178
2028 2,335,507 1,783,146 365,000 0 0 0 4,483,653
2029 2,335,507 2,163,700 486,881 0 0 0 4,986,088
2030 2,475,638 2,293,522 905,929 0 0 0 5,675,089
2031 2,475,638 2,293,522 1,527,124 0 0 0 6,296,284
2032 2,624,176 2,431,134 1,740,041 160,000 0 0 6,955,350
2033 2,624,176 2,431,134 2,108,769 429,413 0 0 7,593,492
2034 2,781,627 2,577,002 2,235,295 842,626 0 0 8,436,549
2035 2,781,627 2,577,002 2,235,295 1,341,070 0 0 8,934,993
2036 2,948,524 2,731,622 2,369,413 1,810,499 110,000 0 9,970,058
2037 2,948,524 2,731,622 2,369,413 1,969,969 197,280 0 10,216,808
2038 3,125,436 2,895,519 2,511,578 2,088,167 295,876 0 10,916,576
2039 3,125,436 2,895,519 2,511,578 2,088,167 537,699 0 11,158,398
2040 3,312,962 3,069,250 2,662,272 2,213,458 632,734 95,000 11,985,676
2041 3,312,962 3,069,250 2,662,272 2,213,458 756,274 41,443 12,055,659
2042 3,511,739 3,253,405 2,822,009 2,346,265 801,651 297,214 13,032,283
2043 3,511,739 3,253,405 2,822,009 2,346,265 801,651 258,163 12,993,232
2044 3,722,444 3,448,610 2,991,329 2,487,041 849,750 475,094 13,974,267
2045 3,722,444 3,448,610 2,991,329 2,487,041 849,750 514,518 14,013,691
2046 3,945,790 3,655,526 3,170,809 2,636,263 900,735 592,608 14,901,731
2047 3,945,790 3,655,526 3,170,809 2,636,263 900,735 592,608 14,901,731
2048 4,182,538 3,874,858 3,361,057 2,794,439 954,779 628,164 15,795,835
2049 4,182,538 3,874,858 3,361,057 2,794,439 954,779 628,164 15,795,835
2050 4,433,490 4,107,349 3,562,721 2,962,106 1,012,065 665,854 16,743,585
2051 4,433,490 4,107,349 3,562,721 2,962,106 1,012,065 665,854 16,743,585
2052 4,699,500 4,353,790 3,776,484 3,139,832 1,072,789 705,805 17,748,200
2053 4,699,500 4,353,790 3,776,484 3,139,832 1,072,789 705,805 17,748,200
2054 0 4,615,017 4,003,073 3,328,222 1,137,157 748,153 13,831,622
2055 0 4,615,017 4,003,073 3,328,222 1,137,157 748,153 13,831,622
2056 0 4,891,919 4,243,257 3,527,915 1,205,386 793,043 14,661,520
2057 0 4,891,919 4,243,257 3,527,915 1,205,386 793,043 14,661,520
2058 0 0 4,497,853 3,739,590 1,277,709 840,625 10,355,777
2059 0 0 4,497,853 3,739,590 1,277,709 840,625 10,355,777
2060 0 0 4,767,724 3,963,965 1,354,372 891,063 10,977,124
2061 0 0 4,767,724 3,963,965 1,354,372 891,063 10,977,124
2062 0 0 0 4,201,803 1,435,634 944,527 6,581,964
2063 0 0 0 4,201,803 1,435,634 944,527 6,581,964
2064 0 0 0 4,453,911 1,521,772 1,001,198 6,976,882
2065 0 0 0 4,453,911 1,521,772 1,001,198 6,976,882
2066 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,061,270 2,674,348
2067 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,061,270 2,674,348
2068 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,124,946 2,738,025
2069 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,124,946 2,738,025
2070 0 0 0 0 0 1,192,443 1,192,443
2071 1,192,443 1,192,443
2072 1,263,990 1,263,990
2073 1,263,990 1,263,990
2074 1,339,829 1,339,829
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
99,419,519 103,504,218 101,083,490 94,319,532 36,029,773 27,928,639 462,285,171
6/20/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
1
1
2050
2082
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
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan
Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds
Total Par: $187,590,000
Total Project: $165,075,850
Ser. 2023 Ser. 2027 Ser. 2031 Ser. 2035 Ser. 2039 Ser. 2044
$40,425,000 Par $42,075,000 Par $40,995,000 Par $38,300,000 Par $14,635,000 Par $11,160,000 Par Surplus
[Net $35.573 MM] [Net $37.025 MM] [Net $36.074 MM] [Net $33.703 MM] [Net $12.881 MM] [Net $9.820 MM]Total Annual Release Cumulative Cov. of Net DS:
Net Available Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Surplus 0% D/A Surplus
for Debt Svc Service Service Service Service Service Service Service to $18,759,000 $18,759,000 Target
$0 0.0%
0 00.0%
0 $0 0 0 0 0.0%
230,000 0 230,000 0 230,000 0.0%
504,915 0 504,915 0 734,915 0.0%
904,411 0 904,411 0 1,639,326 0.0%
1,421,428 $0 0 1,421,428 0 3,060,754 0.0%
1,879,813 1,617,000 1,617,000 262,813 0 3,323,568 116.3%
2,621,249 1,617,000 1,617,000 1,004,249 0 4,327,816 162.1%
3,093,111 1,692,000 1,692,000 1,401,111 0 5,728,927 182.8%
3,726,178 1,694,000 $0 1,694,000 2,032,178 0 7,761,105 220.0%
4,483,653 1,795,800 1,683,000 3,478,800 1,004,853 0 8,765,959 128.9%
4,986,088 1,793,400 1,683,000 3,476,400 1,509,688 0 10,275,647 143.4%
5,675,089 1,900,800 1,763,000 3,663,800 2,011,289 0 12,286,936 154.9%
6,296,284 1,903,600 1,759,800 $0 3,663,400 2,632,884 0 14,919,821 171.9%
6,955,350 2,015,800 1,866,600 1,639,800 5,522,200 1,433,150 0 16,352,971 126.0%
7,593,492 2,018,000 1,869,000 1,639,800 5,526,800 2,066,692 0 18,419,663 137.4%
8,436,549 2,139,400 1,981,000 1,714,800 5,835,200 2,601,349 2,262,012 18,759,000 144.6%
8,934,993 2,135,200 1,978,200 1,716,800 $0 5,830,200 3,104,793 3,104,793 18,759,000 153.3%
9,970,058 2,265,200 2,100,000 1,818,600 1,532,000 7,715,800 2,254,258 2,254,258 18,759,000 129.2%
10,216,808 2,264,000 2,096,400 1,821,200 1,532,000 7,713,600 2,503,208 2,503,208 18,759,000 132.5%
10,916,576 2,401,600 2,222,200 1,928,400 1,602,000 8,154,200 2,762,376 2,762,376 18,759,000 133.9%
11,158,398 2,402,400 2,227,200 1,931,000 1,604,200 $0 8,164,800 2,993,598 2,993,598 18,759,000 136.7%
11,985,676 2,546,600 2,356,000 2,043,000 1,701,200 585,400 9,232,200 2,753,476 2,753,476 18,759,000 129.8%
12,055,659 2,548,400 2,358,600 2,045,000 1,699,200 585,400 9,236,600 2,819,059 2,819,059 18,759,000 130.5%
13,032,283 2,698,200 2,499,800 2,166,200 1,802,000 615,400 9,781,600 3,250,683 3,250,683 18,759,000 133.2%
12,993,232 2,700,000 2,499,000 2,166,800 1,800,400 $614,200 9,780,400 3,212,832 3,212,832 18,759,000 132.8%
13,974,267 2,859,400 2,651,600 2,296,400 1,908,400 653,000 $0 10,368,800 3,605,467 3,605,467 18,759,000 134.8%
14,013,691 2,860,000 2,651,400 2,299,800 1,911,600 650,200 446,400 10,819,400 3,194,291 3,194,291 18,759,000 129.5%
14,901,731 3,032,800 2,809,200 2,436,800 2,024,000 692,400 451,400 11,446,600 3,455,131 3,455,131 18,759,000 130.2%
14,901,731 3,030,800 2,808,600 2,437,000 2,026,200 692,800 451,200 11,446,600 3,455,131 3,455,131 18,759,000 130.2%
15,795,835 3,215,600 2,975,600 2,580,600 2,147,400 733,000 481,000 12,133,200 3,662,635 3,662,635 18,759,000 130.2%
15,795,835 3,214,600 2,978,400 2,581,800 2,147,800 731,400 479,600 12,133,600 3,662,235 3,662,235 18,759,000 130.2%
16,743,585 3,409,800 3,158,200 2,736,000 2,277,000 774,600 508,200 12,863,800 3,879,785 3,879,785 18,759,000 130.2%
16,743,585 3,408,200 3,157,800 2,737,000 2,274,800 775,800 510,600 12,864,200 3,879,385 3,879,385 18,759,000 130.2%
17,748,200 3,612,200 3,349,000 2,900,600 2,411,200 821,600 542,800 13,637,400 4,110,800 4,110,800 18,759,000 130.1%
17,748,200 3,613,392 3,349,000 2,900,200 2,410,600 825,200 538,600 13,636,992 4,111,208 4,111,208 18,759,000 130.1%
13,831,622 0 3,545,000 3,077,000 2,558,200 873,200 574,400 10,627,800 3,203,822 3,203,822 18,759,000 130.1%
13,831,622 0 3,549,000 3,078,800 2,558,000 873,800 573,600 10,633,200 3,198,422 3,198,422 18,759,000 130.1%
14,661,520 0 3,758,200 3,262,200 2,710,600 923,800 607,600 11,262,400 3,399,120 3,399,120 18,759,000 130.2%
14,661,520 0 3,761,992 3,259,800 2,709,800 926,200 610,000 11,267,792 3,393,728 3,393,728 18,759,000 130.1%
10,355,777 0 0 3,458,600 2,876,400 982,800 642,000 7,959,800 2,395,977 2,395,977 18,759,000 130.1%
10,355,777 0 0 3,455,400 2,873,600 981,400 642,400 7,952,800 2,402,977 2,402,977 18,759,000 130.2%
10,977,124 0 0 3,662,800 3,047,800 1,039,200 682,400 8,432,200 2,544,924 2,544,924 18,759,000 130.2%
10,977,124 0 0 3,666,392 3,046,800 1,038,800 680,400 8,432,392 2,544,732 2,544,732 18,759,000 130.2%
6,581,964 0 0 0 3,227,200 1,102,400 723,000 5,052,600 1,529,364 1,529,364 18,759,000 130.3%
6,581,964 0 0 0 3,231,600 1,102,400 723,400 5,057,400 1,524,564 1,524,564 18,759,000 130.1%
6,976,882 0 0 0 3,421,600 1,166,200 768,200 5,356,000 1,620,882 1,620,882 18,759,000 130.3%
6,976,882 0 0 0 3,424,467 1,166,200 765,600 5,356,267 1,620,615 1,620,615 18,759,000 130.3%
2,674,348 0 0 0 0 1,239,800 812,400 2,052,200 622,148 622,148 18,759,000 130.3%
2,674,348 0 0 0 0 1,239,000 811,600 2,050,600 623,748 623,748 18,759,000 130.4%
2,738,025 0 0 0 0 1,236,600 865,000 2,101,600 636,425 636,425 18,759,000 130.3%
2,738,025 0 0 0 0 1,238,858 860,400 2,099,258 638,766 638,766 18,759,000 130.4%
1,192,443 0 0000915,000 915,000 277,443 277,443 18,759,000 130.3%
1,192,443 916,400 916,400 276,043 276,043 18,759,000 130.1%
1,263,990 971,600 971,600 292,390 292,390 18,759,000 130.1%
1,263,990 968,400 968,400 295,590 295,590 18,759,000 130.5%
1,339,829 1,030,350 1,030,350 309,479 19,068,479 0 130.0%
___________________________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
462,285,171 74,405,192 77,445,792 75,458,592 70,498,067 26,881,058 20,553,950 345,242,650 117,042,521 117,042,521
[ DJun2018 23splbD ] [ DJun2018 27splbD ] [ DJun2018 31splbD ] [ DJun2018 35splbD ] [ DJun2018 39splbD ] [ DJun2018 44splbD ]
6/20/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
2
1
2050
2082
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
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan
Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds
Cash-Flow Bonds >>>
Surplus Total CF Bond Less Payments Accrued
Available for Application Available for Date Bond Interest Toward Interest Less Payments Balance of Sub Bonds Less Payments Balance of Total Surplus Surplus Cum. Surplus
CF Bond of Prior Year CF Bond Bonds on Balance Sub Bond + Int. on Bal. @ Toward Accrued Accrued Principal Toward Bond CF Bond CF Bond Cash Flow Release
Debt Service Surplus Debt Service Issued 7.00%Interest 7.00%Interest Interest Issued Principal Principal Pmts.
0 0 12/1/19 41,261 0 41,261 0 41,261 15,157,000 0 15,157,000 0 0 0
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,063,878 0 1,105,139 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,138,350 0 2,243,489 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,218,034 0 3,461,523 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,303,297 0 4,764,820 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,394,527 0 6,159,347 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,492,144 0 7,651,491 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,596,594 0 9,248,086 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,708,356 0 10,956,442 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,827,941 0 12,784,382 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,955,897 0 14,740,279 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,092,810 0 16,833,089 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,239,306 0 19,072,395 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,396,058 0 21,468,453 0 15,157,000 0000
0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,563,782 0 24,032,234 0 15,157,000 0000
2,262,012 0 2,262,012 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,682,256 1,201,022 24,513,469 0 15,157,000 2,262,012000
3,104,793 0 3,104,793 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,715,943 2,043,803 24,185,609 0 15,157,000 3,104,793000
2,254,258 0 2,254,258 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,692,993 1,193,268 24,685,334 0 15,157,000 2,254,258000
2,503,208 0 2,503,208 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,727,973 1,442,218 24,971,089 0 15,157,000 2,503,208000
2,762,376 0 2,762,376 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,747,976 1,701,386 25,017,680 0 15,157,000 2,762,376000
2,993,598 0 2,993,598 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,751,238 1,932,608 24,836,309 0 15,157,000 2,993,598000
2,753,476 0 2,753,476 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,738,542 1,692,486 24,882,365 0 15,157,000 2,753,476000
2,819,059 0 2,819,059 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,741,766 1,758,069 24,866,062 0 15,157,000 2,819,059000
3,250,683 0 3,250,683 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,740,624 2,189,693 24,416,993 0 15,157,000 3,250,683000
3,212,832 0 3,212,832 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,709,189 2,151,842 23,974,340 0 15,157,000 3,212,832000
3,605,467 0 3,605,467 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,678,204 2,544,477 23,108,067 0 15,157,000 3,605,467000
3,194,291 0 3,194,291 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,617,565 2,133,301 22,592,331 0 15,157,000 3,194,291000
3,455,131 0 3,455,131 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,581,463 2,394,141 21,779,654 0 15,157,000 3,455,131000
3,455,131 0 3,455,131 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,524,576 2,394,141 20,910,088 0 15,157,000 3,455,131000
3,662,635 0 3,662,635 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,463,706 2,601,645 19,772,150 0 15,157,000 3,662,635000
3,662,235 0 3,662,235 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,384,050 2,601,245 18,554,956 0 15,157,000 3,662,235000
3,879,785 0 3,879,785 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,298,847 2,818,795 17,035,008 0 15,157,000 3,879,785000
3,879,385 0 3,879,385 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,192,451 2,818,395 15,409,063 0 15,157,000 3,879,385000
4,110,800 0 4,110,800 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,078,634 3,049,810 13,437,888 0 15,157,000 4,110,800000
4,111,208 0 4,111,208 1,060,990 1,060,990 940,652 3,050,218 11,328,322 0 15,157,000 4,111,208000
3,203,822 0 3,203,822 1,060,990 1,060,990 792,983 2,142,832 9,978,472 0 15,157,000 3,203,822000
3,198,422 0 3,198,422 1,060,990 1,060,990 698,493 2,137,432 8,539,533 0 15,157,000 3,198,422000
3,399,120 0 3,399,120 1,060,990 1,060,990 597,767 2,338,130 6,799,170 0 15,157,000 3,399,120000
3,393,728 0 3,393,728 1,060,990 1,060,990 475,942 2,332,738 4,942,374 0 15,157,000 3,393,728000
2,395,977 0 2,395,977 1,060,990 1,060,990 345,966 1,334,987 3,953,353 0 15,157,000 2,395,977000
2,402,977 0 2,402,977 1,060,990 1,060,990 276,735 1,341,987 2,888,101 0 15,157,000 2,402,977000
2,544,924 0 2,544,924 1,060,990 1,060,990 202,167 1,483,934 1,606,334 0 15,157,000 2,544,924000
2,544,732 0 2,544,732 1,060,990 1,060,990 112,443 1,483,742 235,035 0 15,157,000 2,544,732000
1,529,364 0 1,529,364 1,060,990 1,060,990 16,452 251,487 0 216,887 14,940,113 1,529,364000
1,524,564 0 1,524,564 1,045,808 1,045,808 0 0 0 478,756 14,461,357 1,524,564000
1,620,882 0 1,620,882 1,012,295 1,012,295 0 0 0 608,587 13,852,771 1,620,882000
1,620,615 0 1,620,615 969,694 969,694 0 0 0 650,921 13,201,849 1,620,615000
622,148 0 622,148 924,129 622,148 301,981 0 301,981 0 13,201,849 622,148000
623,748 0 623,748 924,129 623,748 321,520 0 623,501 0 13,201,849 623,748000
636,425 0 636,425 924,129 636,425 331,350 0 954,850 0 13,201,849 636,425000
638,766 0 638,766 924,129 638,766 352,203 0 1,307,053 0 13,201,849 638,766000
277,443 0 277,443 924,129 277,443 738,180 0 2,045,233 0 13,201,849 277,443000
276,043 0 276,043 924,129 276,043 791,253 0 2,836,486 0 13,201,849 276,043000
292,390 0 292,390 924,129 292,390 830,294 0 3,666,780 0 13,201,849 292,390000
295,590 0 295,590 924,129 295,590 885,214 0 4,551,994 0 13,201,849 295,590000
19,068,479 0 19,068,479 924,129 924,129 318,640 4,870,634 0 13,201,849 0 18,996,613 71,866 71,866 0
__________ __________ ____________________ __________ __________ ____________________ ____________________ _________ __________
117,042,521 0 117,042,521 57,008,793 38,383,190 63,430,465 63,430,465 15,157,000 15,157,000 116,970,655 71,866 71,866
6/20/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
3
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Summary (Aggregate)
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 6/20/18)
Residential Development Commercial Development
Product Type
SFDs MF Retail Office Industrial
Base $ ('18)$450,000 $225,000 $150/sf $200/sf $100/sf
Res'l Totals Comm'l SF Total*
2017 - - - - - - -
2018 - - - - - - -
2019 - - - - - - -
2020 160 50 210 20,000 - - 20,000
2021 175 150 325 20,000 - 30,000 50,000
2022 170 125 295 20,000 - 40,000 60,000
2023 180 100 280 25,000 15,000 20,000 60,000
2024 180 - 180 25,000 - - 25,000
2025 180 180 360 - 25,000 30,000 55,000
2026 180 90 270 10,000 10,000 - 20,000
2027 160 90 250 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000
2028 175 180 355 10,000 - - 10,000
2029 175 80 255 - 10,000 40,000 50,000
2030 160 100 260 10,000 10,000 - 20,000
2031 130 - 130 10,000 - 40,000 50,000
2032 140 - 140 20,000 - - 20,000
2033 150 100 250 - 30,000 50,000 80,000
2034 140 100 240 10,000 20,000 50,000 80,000
2035 - 120 120 - - 30,000 30,000
2036 - 110 110 - - - -
2037 - 100 100 10,000 - 50,000 60,000
2038 - 110 110 - 10,000 - 10,000
2039 - 75 75 - - 25,000 25,000
2040 - - - - 20,000 - 20,000
2041 - 75 75 - - - -
2042 - 75 75 10,000 20,000 - 30,000
2043 - - - - 10,000 - 10,000
2044 - - - - 10,000 - 10,000
2045 - - - - - - -
2046 - - - - - - -
2047 - - - - - - -
2,455 2,010 4,465 210,000 200,000 445,000 855,000
MV @ Full Buildout $1,104,750,000 $452,250,000 $1,557,000,000 $31,500,000 $40,000,000 $44,500,000 $116,000,000
(base prices;un-infl.)
AV @ Full Buildout $112,104,000 $33,640,000
(base prices;un-infl.)77% of AV 23% of AV
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
6/21/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx Dev Summary Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
4
Jun 20, 2018 4:45 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~MK (Montava MD 17:SPLBD)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Combined Results
~~~~~~~~
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044
SUBORDINATE BONDS, SERIES 2019B
~~~
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2023 12/01/2027 12/01/2031 12/01/2035 12/01/2039 12/01/2044 12/01/2019
Delivery Date 12/01/2023 12/01/2027 12/01/2031 12/01/2035 12/01/2039 12/01/2044 12/01/2019
Sources:SERIES 2023A SERIES 2027A SERIES 2031A SERIES 2035A SERIES 2039A SERIES 2044A SERIES 2019B Total
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 40,425,000.00 42,075,000.00 40,995,000.00 38,300,000.00 14,635,000.00 11,160,000.00 15,157,000.00 202,747,000.00
40,425,000.00 42,075,000.00 40,995,000.00 38,300,000.00 14,635,000.00 11,160,000.00 15,157,000.00 202,747,000.00
Uses:SERIES 2023A SERIES 2027A SERIES 2031A SERIES 2035A SERIES 2039A SERIES 2044A SERIES 2019B Total
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 35,572,991.67 37,024,791.67 36,074,391.67 33,702,866.67 12,880,858.33 9,819,950.00 14,702,290.00 179,778,140.01
Other Fund Deposits:
Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,235,008.33 3,367,208.33 3,280,808.33 3,065,133.33 1,168,741.67 893,650.00 15,010,549.99
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 1,617,000.00 1,683,000.00 1,639,800.00 1,532,000.00 585,400.00 446,400.00 454,710.00 7,958,310.00
40,425,000.00 42,075,000.00 40,995,000.00 38,300,000.00 14,635,000.00 11,160,000.00 15,157,000.00 202,747,000.00
5
39
EXHIBIT K
Public Benefits
New Urbanism is an urban design movement which promotes environmentally friendly habits by
creating walkable neighborhoods containing a wide range of housing and job types. Montava has been
designed by the industry leaders in New Urbanist design, DPZ, and it influences every aspect of the
Project.
Montava implements a new urbanist design by:
Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric
Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed
Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood
Creating walkable streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations
Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets
Integrating market rate and affordable housing
1. Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric.
Montava includes a wide range of uses and housing, specifically on display in the town center
and early development phases. The town center includes stand-alone commercial, incubator
commercial, office, entertainment, mixed-use, multi-family, and high intensity single family. It is
located along the southern edge of Montava to knit together both development in Montava and
future development to the south. The town center is in a traditional town center format, with
walkable streets that extend beyond the center, into the surrounding neighborhood fabric. While
accessible by car, the town center is located at the convergence of major and minor streets, trails,
and open space amenities. Within the core of the town center, more dense development is
planned, including non-residential and multi-family residential at relatively high densities.
Moving out from the town center towards the adjacent neighborhoods, the density steps down
slightly and a variety of different housing types mix together. To achieve this intensity and
connected network of streets and trails, careful planning, engineering, and financing are necessary
to implement dense infrastructure, a tight grid of streets, on and off-street trails, and stormwater,
including existing and future ditches.
2. Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed.
Montava is phased as a series of neighborhoods, varying in character and intensity. While the site
appears to be a continual grid, natural topographic features, trails, streets, and stormwater
facilities divide it into sub-areas that will develop their own identity within the whole of Montava.
Each neighborhood is designed to include a mix of housing types and intensities. They are located
to either address a series of amenities along its edge, such as parks, schools, and gardens, or a
strong amenity within its boundaries. Each neighborhood is analyzed on the scale of a 5-minute
walk, within which smaller amenities and playgrounds are planned, near to housing. The town
center, the farm, and the City park serve as major amenities, drawing people together with the
majority able to reach one or more easily by foot. Achieving this structure requires a connected
grid of streets that move from one neighborhood to another, and the ability to vary density and
use within each. Connections between and through neighborhoods are necessary for the success
of Montava’s major amenities, including the town center.
3. Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood.
40
Each neighborhood includes at least 3 zones of intensity, which is a key new urban metric for
achieving diverse and walkable communities. While some neighborhoods overall are lower in
intensity and others higher, within each neighborhood housing types are mixed. This mixing
allows for an overall higher intensity of housing by ensuring distribution of higher intensity
housing which can be problematic when concentrated. In addition to density through mixed-use,
Montava seeks to achieve density through smaller lots and houses, arranged in courts and
clusters. These are mixed into each neighborhood, adding intensity while integrating into
neighborhood character. A key to achieving intensity and a mix of housing is having a consistent
system of alleys. Higher intensity housing does not work without a system of alleys, and the alley
allows housing of different types and scales to coexist by removing the eyesores of parking and
service from streets.
4. Creating walkable and bike able streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations.
Walkability relies upon well designed streets, systems of trails, and distributed destinations to
encourage walking and biking rather than driving. Creating a walkable place isn’t only about
travel mode either, it is about connecting neighbors with each other and promoting public health
by encouraging residents to spend time out in the community. Walkability begins with a pattern
of development that moves cars from the front to the back, behind homes and businesses usually
accessed by alleys. The design of the street space makes pedestrians feel comfortable by reducing
the amount of street space given to cars and providing quality street trees, lighting scaled and
designed for pedestrians, and comfortable sidewalks. Sidewalks must also be scaled to the
intensity of the area. In lower intensity areas, two people should be able to walk abreast. In higher
intensity areas, room for 3 or 4 people next to each other is necessary. On-street parking is
another key feature of walkability, shielding pedestrians from moving cars. Reducing pavement
width and car speed makes most streets bike able, but key routes are also configured as bike
boulevards and others with dedicated facilities. Combined with walkable streets, the regional trail
network is connected into the core of Montava, and additional trails are provided through the
center and along the edge. Destinations in Montava are distributed to encourage pedestrian and
bike movement throughout the site, and to encourage neighborliness. The farm anchors the NE
corner, along with farm-related retail and services in a small neighborhood center. The high
school and middle school anchor the SE corner. The western edge is anchored by the City park
and the elementary school. And the core of Montava is anchored by the town center, central
square, and a grand avenue connecting the farm and town center to each other.
5. Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets.
A connected grid of streets is a core new urbanist principle. Montava has a strong street grid that
creates walkable blocks and distributes traffic throughout the site. The street network makes key
connections to existing neighbors and along significant arterials. Within Montava the street
network is primarily made up of low-speed, pedestrian-centric streets, meant to distribute and
slow traffic while creating a significant amount of capacity. The grid integrates Timberline,
Mountain Vista, Giddings, Country Club, and Richard’s Lake, with numerous connections in-
between.
6. Integrating market rate and affordable housing.
Along with mixing housing types, Montava strives to include affordable housing throughout.
Housing affordability is achieved within the market and through subsidy. On the market side, the
range of housing will include large, expensive housing as well as small, inexpensive housing, and
everything in-between. Market rate housing is made more affordable by limiting the lot size and
building size, and arranging housing in courts and on pedestrian ways that reduce infrastructure
cost per unit. Subsidized housing is also integrated into Montava, using a strategy of dispersion
41
rather than concentration. Historically areas of concentrated poverty create self-perpetuating
cycles and are targets for community pushback. Distributing subsidized housing throughout
Montava reduces any associated negative impacts while it also helps break the cycle of poverty
by removing social barriers. Both market-based and subsidized housing benefit from reduced or
deferred infrastructure costs, lowering the base cost of improved property.
Agri-Urban Development - Montava will have a 40 acre organic farm run by Native Hill Farms and
owned by the Poudre Valley Community Farms Land Coop. The Native Hill Farm @ Montava will serve
the entire community of the City with the highest quality, wide variety of locally grown organic
vegetables. While there may be other uses on the farm in the long term, the primary business model is
organic vegetables. Directly, The District will be able to provide to Public Infrastructure like irrigation
infrastructure, irrigation water delivery, berms wind breaks and landscaping, interior roads, green houses,
pack house facility, farm stand, and other items. By providing such Public Infrastructure through the
Districts the developer will be able to place up to 40 acres of developable land into the Land Coop, which
would otherwise not be able to afford to purchase it.
Energy and Water conservation.
1. The developer is working with the City of Fort Collins Utility to create a community that is
founded on renewable energy use, energy conservation, with community wide impact. An
example we are working on could include every home having a battery which is charged at
night by the city’s wind turbine power generation, and used during the day by the Utility for
solar smoothing. (We have a charrette with Siemens and the City on August 7th to define
this)
2. Every home will be built to the DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Home standard, and the EPA’s
WaterSense guidelines. We will be the largest ZERH community in the country.
3. 85% of the irrigation needs will be met by non-potable water sources, and the community
overall will be managed from a “we conserve resources” perspective though the Distrcts.
4. The Districts are anticipated to manage a community wide “in home” water conservation
effort by acting as the middle man between ELCO and individual home owners. By
purchasing water with a master meter, the District can remove the excessive water dedication
needed to account for individual variation in use. By implementing a community wide water
conservation approach managed by the Districts, the developer expects to achieve a
substantial savings in overall water use.
5. All of these items cost more money than building traditional code built homes, and this cost
must be offset to whatever extent is possible by the District offsetting basic Public
Infrastructure costs. Where there is Public Infrastructure like non-potable irrigation systems,
the Districts may directly contribute to that effort. This system is being designed by Hines
Irrigation and is estimated to cost $8MM. It will also be maintained and supported with a
billing system through the Districts.
Community Services in the town center will include things like community retail and commercial
opportunities. The developer intends to partner with the City to develop a Community Rec Center, and
with the Poudre Library District to develop a library for the next generation. The Districts may be used to
help fund various aspects of public facilities like the Rec Center.
Community Park integration is at the heart of what Montava represents. The developer is working with
the City’s Parks department to create an 80+ acre community park that will be an activity and enjoyment
hub for all NE Fort Collins. The intention is to activate this park from the beginning of Montava’s life,
not 20+ years in the future as the current plan dictates. This allows an entire generation of City residents
to enjoy it. The Districts are anticipated to fund portions of this effort directly, and it’s use for traditional
42
infrastructure offers flexibility for additional developer investment and flexible terms that can make this
early development possible.
Natural Areas is working with Montava in serval ways, including the naturalization of over 150 acres of
storm water land that will become a beautiful natural amenity to the entire area, while protecting all of
east Fort Collins from floods. The developer will also be incorporating Nature in the City throughout
Montava. Both of these efforts can be activated and supported if necessary by Metro District Funds.
Multi Modal Transportation was a critical design concept from the very beginning. The developer has
an incredible team lead by local and international experts including Ruth Rollins and Nelson Nygaard.
This team has assured multi modal design and integration with the entire community of the City from the
beginning from bicycle path to future transit integration. Immediately activating the community trail
system and integrating that into the overall City trail network, is an area of direct impact the Districts will
make. It can both build, and maintain the trail system that is internal to Montava. It can also be used to
facilitate the construction of “off site” trail systems to integrate Montava with the rest of the City.
Affordable Housing is a national crisis, and is not new to the City real estate reality. Montava has been
designed from the very beginning to incorporate substantial affordable housing options including both
innovative single site multi family, and creative distributed ownership model affordable housing. We
intend for at least 10% of the housing units in Montava to be affordable, distributed between both owned
and “for rent” units. We will partner with the City , Housing Catalyst, Land Trusts like Elevations, and
many other partners to attack this challenging problem. Every aspect of this costs additional money
beyond traditional development costs. In this area, the Districts have a strong but indirect benefit.
Having the Districts to help offset traditional infrastructure costs enables more flexible and aggressive
approaches to integrating affordable housing into the community by enabling land sales below market, the
offset of infrastructure costs in lot costs, and other areas.
Housing Variety is a critical element of building a Traditional Neighborhood Design community. DPZ
specializes in designing communities with tremendous, and beautiful, integration of divers and wide
ranging housing options. When done intentionally, and with the best expertise which we have hired,
creates an incredible living environment that is unlike 99% of what has been built in the past 50+ years in
our country. This costs more money in all phases of planning, designing, and execution of development.
The Districts have an indirect impact on our ability to close the gap on these additional costs. (I have
attached a housing type plan showing the overall plan for multiple housing types, and how they are
embedded into the community plan.)
Innovation is taking many forms in Montava. The developer is working with CSU in multiple areas
including agriculture, waste water, energy and affordable housing. We are working with global leader
Siemens in partnership with the city of Fort Collins Utility to create an incredibly innovative integration
of technology around both energy and daily life. We intend to make the Fort Collins Broadband a
foundational technology for every home owner from day 1. Some of these areas, should they come to
pass, can be both paid for and managed by the Districts. Having our own waste water system which is
fully reused on site is an example.
Employment opportunities exist where highly educated and innovative people live, and community
services and amenities are offered to those employees. We are working to create a place where
employers will want to open businesses, and their innovative employees will want to live. We have made
room in the appropriate areas of our Master Plan for this type of use.
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks and Patrick Rowe
Date: August 20, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Metro District at Waterfield Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thrive Home Builders has submitted a Metro District Service Plan to support a proposed
development of approximately 500 homes on property generally located at the northwest corner
of Vine Drive and Timberline Road. The project will include 50 lots dedicated for affordable
housing construction. In addition, the project will deliver all units as US Department of Energy
Certified Zero Energy Ready and 10 percent of homes with rooftop solar. The presentation will
provide a review of the proposed metro district, based on the current state of staff’s analysis.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council
evaluation of the proposed Waterfield Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Thrive Home Builders (“Thrive”) is evaluating a significant project in Fort Collins, generally
located at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and Timberline Road (see Attachment 2 – Project
Vicinity Map). The project would construct approximately 500 homes in a new urbanist layout -
alley loaded and walkable design. The project is evaluating the ability to deliver up to 50
affordable homes as well as constructing all 500 homes as U.S. Department of Energy Certified
Zero Energy Ready homes.
Thrive is a Colorado grown company that has operated in the metro-Denver area for the past 20
years. Thrive is committed to building healthy, efficient, and local homes. They achieve this goal
by:
UHealthyU – All homes are constructed to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor
airPLUS program standards, include active radon ventilation systems, using advanced
moisture management practices to reduce the likelihood of mold, and use low Volatile
Organic Compound (“VOC”) products.
UEfficient U– All homes are constructed to the U.S. Department of Energy Zero Energy
Ready Home standard, achieve Energy Star Certified status, and include a RESNET
HERS score – an independent energy rating that validates energy efficiency level.
ULocal U– Locally-sourced products are used when available – an example is blue-stained
beetle kill pine.
Thrive also builds affordable homes. Thrive has been building affordable homes, meeting the
Denver Inclusionary Housing guidelines including a deed restriction, for the past 12 years at the
Stapleton Airport Redevelopment. Thrive has built over 380 affordable homes in the Stapleton
project. In addition, they have constructed approximately 500 for-sale homes targeted at 80
percent of Area Median Income (“AMI”) at Belle Creek. In both projects, these homes deliver
the same Zero Energy Ready features as Thrive uses in market rate housing, including trademark
double walls, the ability to add solar panels, and other zero energy ready features.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Thrive is evaluating a project to construct approximately 498 homes on 71 acres (net of the
school site; 93 acres total) at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and Timberline Road (see
Attachment 2 – Project Vicinity Map). The project, called Waterfield, will follow Thrive’s
commitment to healthy, efficient, and local home construction, including all their normal
standards and include raw water irrigation, comply with watersense standards, and re-plat the
project to provide urban design and density, alleys, and walkable features (see Attachment 3 –
Thrive & Waterfield Background Materials).
METRO DISTRICT
Thrive has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Waterfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-
3 (the “Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical public
infrastructure and other site costs reducing the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of three Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver
the proposed Waterfield Project. The phased development is anticipated to reach build out in
2026 with an estimated population of 1,145. A few highlights about the proposed Service Plan,
include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $19 million in 2028 (the first year of
full value after build-out)
Aggregate Mill Levy – 50 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or
intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 10 Mills
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $22,429,750 to cover a total of
$43,981,050 in estimated costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation
and/or stormwater improvements
Public Improvements
The Service Plans anticipate using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the
maximum amount of $22.4 million to fund all or a portion of the following $37.3 million in
public improvements (details available in Exhibit D of the Service Plan):
Site Preparation/Grading – Up to approximately $7.2 million in site preparation costs
and grading associated with the proposed project
Roadway Improvements – Up to approximately $6.4 million to fund local residential
streets, alleys, boulevards, and a major extension of Suniga a 4-lane arterial that bisects
the project (estimated roadway costs of $1.7 million)
Potable Waterline Improvements – Up to $1.7 million in costs to construct the 8-inch
waterline infrastructure that will be the main potable water infrastructure for the project
Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Up to $3.2 million in costs associated with
constructing the main sanitary sewer infrastructure for the project
Storm Drainage Improvements – Up to $1.9 million in costs to construct the main
storm drainage system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading
ponds is included in the Site Preparation/Grading amount above)
Open Space, Parks and Trails – Up to $3.8 million in costs to construct primarily
natural area open space and regional trails
Administrative, Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs – Up to $13 million in
costs associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting,
testing, planning, and permitting the construction of the public improvements along with
approximately $6.2 million in contingency
Of these $37.3 million in potential public improvement costs, the applicant has estimated that
approximately $6.6 million of these costs are non-basic costs. Non-basic costs are assumed to be
costs that are not typical for a development of the proposed project’s type and/or size. These
costs therefore, are considered extraordinary infrastructure costs. The estimated $6.6 million in
non-basic costs combined with the value of the indirect public benefits described below
represents the City’s enhanced value received from the proposed Service Plan.
Public Benefits
As required by the proposed new policy, the Service Plan will deliver a number of extraordinary
development outcomes that support deliver a number of public benefits. The benefits and their
estimated value are described below (details available in Exhibit H of the Service Plan):
Zero Energy Ready – The applicant has agreed to construct all 498 homes in the
proposed project in compliance with the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready and
Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor airPlus standards – the estimated cost of
delivering homes at these standards is $14 million
Net Zero Energy/Distributed Storage – The applicant has agreed to construction either
10 percent of the homes as Net Zero Energy (with Rooftop Solar) or distributed power
storage equivalent to the consumption by 10 percent of homes at an estimated cost of
$2.8 million
Multimodal Transportation Improvements – The applicant has agreed to deliver
buffered bike lanes, wider than required sidewalks, and enhanced pedestrian crossings as
part of the construction of the 4-lane arterial Suniga at an estimated cost of $212,000
Smart Growth Management – The applicant has agreed to design and construct the
project at the upper-end of the zoned density by following new urbanist principles such as
alley loading, smaller lot size, and increasing multi-family density at an estimated cost of
$6.1 million
Walkability/Pedestrian Friendliness – The applicant has agreed to make trail
enhancements along the wetlands and other portions of the project to facilitate
connections to the regional trail system at an estimated cost of $2.1 million
Public Spaces – The applicant has agreed to construct a number of pocket parks as well
as mixed use open spaces throughout the project at an estimated cost of $1.7 million
Affordable Housing – The applicant has agreed to make 10 percent of the homes
(approximately 50 lots) available for the construction of affordable homes targeted at 80
percent of area median income – these homes will likely be constructed in partnership
with either a land trust or similar entity – at an estimated cost of $3.3 million
The applicant estimates that value of the above public benefits at approximately $30.8 million.
Some of the above costs overlap with public improvements costs – approximately $3.7 million
primarily in public spaces and regional trails. Therefore, the estimated value of the public
benefits is conservatively $27.1 million. Combining the estimate of public benefit costs along
with the non-basic public improvements costs the total anticipated benefit to the community is
estimated at $33.7 million.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues the currently adopted and proposed
policy is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1
Metro District Policy Comparison
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Waterfield does not comply with the City’s existing
policy. However, it represents an example of the type of project that would comply with the
proposed policy revisions to be considered by City Council on August 21, 2018.
POLICY EVALUATION & PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
The proposed update to the policy supports the formation of a Metro District regardless of
development type when a District delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits
should be: (1) aligned with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary
public benefits are provided by the Metro District or by the entity developing the Metro District
because Metro Districts exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be practically
provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable
basis. The Service Plan for the Waterfield Project delivers several proposed policy outcomes, as
described in the attached matrix (see Attachment 4).
Public Benefits Value vs. Maximum Debt Authorization
Based on the applicant analysis, the proposed Service Plan would deliver approximately $6.7
million in net benefit to the community. This estimate is calculated by subtracting the net costs
(difference between basic public improvements costs and direct public benefits) from the net
total benefits (the sum of the non-basic public improvements and indirect pubic benefits). This
analysis provides an estimate only of the quantitative net value of the public benefits delivered
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Will Comply 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio 100% Residential 90% to 10%N/A
by proposed service plan. The analysis does not account for the qualitative benefits that may also
be delivered by authorizing the Metro District through the Service Plan.
Table 3
Public Benefit Assessment – Estimated Net Benefits
Staff is continuing to evaluate the above estimates supplied by the applicant and will present a
revised version, if necessary, at the time the Service Plan is presented to the entire Council for
consideration.
Triple Bottom Line – Scan
An interdisciplinary staff team met to prepare a Triple Bottom Line Scan of the proposed Service
Plan. The scan compared the proposed development enabled by the Service Plan against the
existing Preliminary Development Plan for the property. This baseline was chosen because the
likelihood of residential development occurring on the site is consistent with underlying zoning
and likely given market forces. Therefore, the effect of the proposed Service Plan relates to how
the residential development will differ because of the Metro District involvement.
The net analysis is generally neutral to slightly positive (details are included in Attachment 5).
The highlights are provided below:
Economic – Generally considered to have a neutral impact on economic conditions in the
community with potential positive impacts on talent retention due to increased housing
supply and cost of living because of affordable units
Environmental – Generally considered to have a neutral impact on environmental
conditions compared to the baseline condition with the potential to have positive impacts
on Climate Action Goals due to energy and water conservation and renewables
Social – Largely consider to have a neutral impact on social health conditions with some
potential positive impact on affordable housing opportunities
Costs Benefits
(In Millions)Basic Non-Basic Total
Public
Improvements 30.7$ 6.6$ 37.3$
Direct Indirect Total
Public Benefits 3.7$ 27.1$ 30.8$
Estimated Total
Costs & Benefits 27.0$ 33.7$ 6.7$
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed policy requires all District proposals submit a Financial Plan to the City for
review. Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting information which may be
necessary, the City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability. This analysis is
still being prepared by Economic & Planning Systems and will be include in the materials
presented to City Council on September 4, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Thrive & Waterfield Background Materials (Applicant Supplied)
4. Policy Evaluation Matrix
5. Triple Bottom Line – Scan Summary
6. Consolidated Service Plan for Waterfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
1
Waterfield Metro District Request
Josh Birks
8-20-18
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Waterfield Metro District Service
Plan?
2
Project Description
New Urbanist Alley
Load project
Increased density
498 units vs. 190
units + 9.9 ac MMN
50 affordable units
3
Policy Comparison –Key Provisions
4
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Will Comply 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio 100% Residential 90% to 10%N/A
Public Improvements
Improvement Description Estimated Cost
Site Prep/Grading Primarily grading $7.2 Million
Roadway Improvements Local streets, alleys,
boulevards, Suniga
$6.4 Million
Potable Water 8” Water mains $1.7 Million
Sanitary Sewer 8” Sewer mains $3.2 Million
Storm Drainage Backbone System $1.9 Million
Open Space, Parks, Trails Natural Area, Regional Trail $3.8 Million
Admin/Design/Permitting &
Contingency
$13 Million
Total $37.3 Million
5
Policy Evaluation & Public Benefits
Environmental Sustainability
GHG Reduction
Water/Energy Conservation
Multimodal Transportation
Enhance Resiliency
Increase Renewable
Capacity
Critical Public Infrastructure
Existing significant infrastructure challenges
On-site
Off-site
Smart Growth Management
Increase density
Walkability/Pedestrian Infrastructure
Availability of Transit
Public Spaces
Mixed-Use
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing
Infill/Redevelopment
Economic Health Outcomes
6
Estimated Net Public Benefits
7
Costs Benefits
(In Millions)Basic Non-Basic Total
Public
Improvements 30.7$ 6.6$ 37.3$
Direct Indirect Total
Public Benefits 3.7$ 27.1$ 30.8$
Estimated Total
Costs & Benefits 27.0$ 33.7$ 6.7$
TBLs
8
Water and Air Quality
Zero Waste
Community Wellness
Low Confidence
Environmental
Economic
Social
Organizational Priorities
High Confidence
Negative Impact Positive Impact
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Waterfield Metro District Service
Plan?
9
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue and Project Manager
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Date: August 20P
th
P, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fee Review: Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees, Step II Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) and
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating impact fees that
require Council approval. Brining fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view
of the impact.
Phase I included CEFs, TCEFs and Electric Capacity Fees was approved by Council in June of
2017. Increases were significant, and Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and
TCEFs. Along with approval, Council asked for a commitment to create a working group of
citizens, industry and staff to foster a better understanding of fees. Phase II fees are Wet Utility
PIFs and Development Review Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled
and will come forward at a later date.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Proposed Next Steps:
• September 17P
th
P: Council Finance Committee
o Working Group Position Paper
o Outreach plan
• September/October: Public Outreach
• November 13P
th
P: Council Work Session
• December 4P
th
P & 18P
th
P: Ordinance readings
• 2019:
o Development Review Fees
o Electric Capacity Fees
2. Questions from Council Finance Committee?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all building related
fees that require Council approval. Brining fees forward for review together provides a more
holistic view of the impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis but are now on a two
and four-year cadence. Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, TCEFs
and Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a
request for proposal (RFP) process. Data is provided by City staff and findings are also verified
by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal
updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis should be targeted
in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I fee updates:
2017 Capital Expansion full fee proposals were significant. Fee changes reflected updated asset
values that reflect higher construction costs, land values that reflect higher last cost and
population and dwelling units per the latest census. These changes caused consternation in the
community and Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs.
Along with the fee approvals above, Council asked for commitment to create a working group of
citizens, industry and staff to foster a better understanding of fees. The working group
commenced in August of 2017 and has met 12 times to date. The working group’s position paper
findings will be presented next month in the September Council Finance Committee meeting.
Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review Fees.
Type of Fee Approved by
Council
Capital Expansion Fees 6
Utility Fees 5
Bldg. Development Fees 45
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled
and will come forward at a later date.
The chart below shows the stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs:
Step I changes (current fee levels) adopted October 1, 2017 are 75% of full fee levels proposed
for CEFs and Option B for TCEFs. Option B does not increase program revenue, it provides
approximately 80% of necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development.
Whereas Option A includes the proportionate cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts of
new development on the transportation system, including new streets, intersection
improvements, and multi-modal improvements.
The chart below shows Step II fee changes with inflation:
CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017 and reflects Option A for
TCEFs. Including inflation, total Step II fee increases are a 27 to 28% increase from current fee
levels (Step I). The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (3.1%
in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018). The Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index Values for
Denver is used for TCEFs (4.0% in 2017 and 1.2% in 2018).
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50%16%21%8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83%42%21%7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74%36%21%6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83%43%21%6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92%50%21%6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22%-36%21%2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9%-27%21%3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41%14%21%2%
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21%28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21%28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21%28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21%28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21%28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21%27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21%27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21%27%
The chart below shows the proposed Wet Utility PIFs changes:
Across the three Wet Utility Fees, staff is proposing 7 to 11% increases. Water PIFs are a 7.1%
increase from current fee levels, Wastewater PIFs are a 9.5% increase from current fee levels and
Stormwater PIFs are a 11.3% increase from current fee levels.
The drivers for the increases on PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed
in 2018
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: PPT slide deck - CFC Fee Update 2018-08-20
1
Council Impact Fee Update
August 20, 2018
Council Finance Committee
Agenda
•Impact Fee Scope & Timeline
•Preparation for Citizen Engagement
•Step II CEFs and TCEFs
•Wet Utility PIFs
•Next Steps
2
Fees Coordination
3
1.Detailed fee study analysis every 4 years
for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees
•Outside Consultant through RFP process
•Data provided by City Staff
•Findings verified by City Staff
2.Detailed fee study analysis every 2 years
for Utility fees
•Internal Update by City Staff with periodic
verification through Consultant
3.Conduct fee study analysis in the odd
year before BFO
Objective:
Bring impact fees forward for
review together to provide a
holistic view of the impact
Type of Fee Approved by
Council
Capital Expansion Fees 6
Utility Fees 5
Bldg. Development Fees 45
Fees Timeline
4
Reflects Master Fee Data Updates, does not reflect annual inflation updates
2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees
Trans. Cap Exp Fees
Electric Capacity Fees
Raw Water / CIL
2021
Phase 1
Electric Capacity Fees
No Fee
Updates
Except
Inflation
Capital Expansion Fees
Trans Cap Exp Fees
Electric Capacity Fees
Wet Utility PIFs
Dev. Review Fees
Raw Water/ CIL
Fee UpdatesFee UpdatesPhase 2
QIII 2017 2019 2020 20212016QIV 2018QII 2018
Wet Utility PIFs
Dev Review Fees
Steps from Phase 1
Fee Working Team
Council/
Community
Discussion
Fees Background
5
Fee Updates in 2017:
‒Asset values reflect
higher construction and
land costs
‒Population & dwelling
units per latest census
‒TCEF Option A
reflected current
transportation plan
Recap: Phase I Fees
6
Council directed stepped implementation for CEF & TCEF
Fee Status as of October 2017 Next Steps
CEFs •75%of fees implemented •Phased in approach -three steps
TCEFs •80%of fees implemented •Phased in approach -two steps
Electric Capacity •100%of fees implemented •Every two years
Raw Water / CIL •100%of fees implemented •TBD
CEFs & TCEFs
2017 Recommendation
7
*Prior Fees January 1, 2017 –September 30, 2017 Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
2017 Fee Recommendation:
•Asset values reflect higher construction costs
•Population & dwelling units per latest census
•Land values reflect higher land cost
Full Fees proposed in 2017
Land Use Type Unit N'hood Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police
Gen.
Gov't Transp.Total
Previous
Total*
% Change
Full Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,721 $2,430 $421 $236 $574 $2,205 $7,587 $5,059 50%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,304 $3,253 $570 $319 $774 $4,095 $11,315 $6,182 83%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,516 $3,552 $620 $347 $845 $5,317 $13,197 $7,574 74%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,542 $3,589 $630 $352 $858 $6,217 $14,188 $7,762 83%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,833 $4,001 $701 $392 $955 $6,664 $15,546 $8,094 92%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $8,113 $10,392 $13,241 -22%
Office and Other Services $531 $297 $1,451 $5,977 $8,256 $9,071 -9%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.0 0 $124 $69 $342 $1,929 $2,464 $1,748 41%
CEFs & TCEFs
Fees Phasing
8
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
•Step I changes adopted Oct. 1, 2017:
•75% of CEFs
•Option B TCEFs
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50%16%21%8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83%42%21%7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74%36%21%6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83%43%21%6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92%50%21%6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22%-36%21%2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9%-27%21%3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41%14%21%2%
•Step II changes proposed:
•90% of CEFs
•Option A TCEFs
CEFs & TCEFs
Step II with Inflation
9
CEF Inflation:
•2017 = 3.1%
•2018 = 3.2%
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21%28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21%28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21%28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21%28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21%28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21%27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21%27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21%27%
•Step II fees are a 27 to 28% increases from current fee levels (Step I)
•CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
•Reflects Option A for TCEF fees
TCEF Inflation
•2017 = 4.0%
•2018 = 1.2%
Engineering News Record's
Construction Cost Index
Values for Denver
CPI-U index for Denver-
Aurora-Lakewood
10
Wet Utility PIFs
Utility Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change %
Change
Water $ / GPD $ 4.66 $ 4.99 $ 0.33 7.1%
Wastewater $ / GPD $ 13.98 $ 15.31 $ 1.33 9.5%
Stormwater Per acre
(adjusted for run-off
factor)
$ 8,217 $ 9,142 $ 925 11.3%
The drivers for the increase on Wet PIFs is the same for all three funds:
•New capital projects increase the overall system value
•Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
•One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in 2018
11
Water PIFs
Water
Rate Class Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change % Change
Residential
Single Family 8600 sq ft $3,558 $3,826 $268 7.5%
Duplex & Multi-family 3435 sq ft $1,364 $1,423 $59 4.3%
Commercial
3/4 Inch by tap size $7,180 $7,940 $760 10.6%
1 Inch by tap size $20,040 $20,960 $920 4.6%
1 1/2 Inch by tap size $43,760 $43,520 ($240)-0.5%
2 Inch by tap size $67,760 $72,470 $4,710 7.0%
12
Wastewater PIFs
Wastewater
2017 2019 Change in
Customer Class Volume Volume Volume Proposed %
GPD GPD GPD Charge Change
Residential 250 231 -7.6%$ 3,537 1.2%
Duplex / Multi-family 180 169 -6.1%$ 2,588 2.8%
Commercial (meter size)
3/4 510 491 -3.7%$ 7,518 5.5%
1 1,230 1,081 -12.1%$ 16,553 -3.7%
1.5 2,390 2,072 -13.3%$ 31,728 -5.0%
2 4,230 4,298 1.6%$ 65,813 11.3%
13
Stormwater PIFs
Stormwater
Rate Class Current 2019 $ Change % Change
Residential
Gross Area Developed (sq ft)8,600 8,600
Common Area Allocation (sq ft)6,156 6,156
Base Rate (per acre*)$8,217 $9,142
Runoff Coefficient 0.5 0.5
Total Fee $1,392 $1,548 $157 11.3%
Commercial
Gross Area Developed (sq ft)43,560 43,560
Base Rate (per acre*)$8,217 $9,142
Runoff Coefficient 0.8 0.8
Total Fee $6,574 $7,314 $740 11.3%
14
Total Fee Increases
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
CEF & TCEFs:
•27 to 28% increases
Utility PIFs:
•7 to 11% increases
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21%28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21%28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21%28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21%28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21%28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21%27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21%27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21%27%
Outreach Plan
15
Organization Date
South Fort Collins Business Association September 4th
Super Issues Forum September 6th
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association September 11th
Downtown Development Authority September 13th
North Fort Collins Business Association September 26th
Local Legislative Affairs Committee September 28th
Affordable Housing Board October 11th
Human Relations Board TBD
Economic Advisory Commission TBD
Board of Relators TBD
Building Review Board TBD
Parks and Recreation Board TBD
Housing Catalyst TBD
Next Steps
16
1.Next Steps:
•September 17th: Council Finance Committee
•Working Group Position Paper
•Outreach plan
•September/October: Public Outreach
•November 13th: Council Work Session
•December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings
•2019:
•Development Review Fees
•Electric Capacity Fees
2.Questions from Council Finance Committee?
Backup
17
Peer Cities
Median Sales Comparison with Fees
18
Of Median Home Sales Prices, Wellington Has Higher Fee Percentages…
Timnath Has Lower Fee Percentages
Fee Comparison:
For Median New Home Sales Price $439K*
19
Fort Collins Fees in the Lower-Middle of the Pack
*Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median New Home Sales
20
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling %
of Median New Home Sales Price
21
Historical Impact Fee Revenue
Fees Apply to Development Only
Revenue Volatility Driven by Development Volatility
Historical Updates and Timing
22
Created
Police
Fire
General Gov't
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks 1986
Transportation Cap. Exp.
1986
Electric Capacity Fees 1972
Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu 1986
Water Utility PIF 1972
Misc. Water Charges 1972
Sewer PIF 1986
Stormwater Utility PIF 1972
Wastewater Strength Surcharge 1972
Misc. Utility Charges 1986
Building Permit fees
1997
Development Review Fees
1997
Transportation Development
Review Fees
1997
Development
Review Fees
1996
Utilities PIFs
Capitial Expansion
Fees
Last Updated Code Requirements
2017 Per Code every 3 years
2017 Per code, every two years
2001
Update in progress for 2017 No guidance in Code
2015 Per code, every two years
2016 No guidance in Code
2015 Per code, every two years
2015 Per code, every two years
2016 No guidance in Code
2014 No guidance in Code
2011 No guidance in Code
1997/2010 No guidance in Code
2006 No guidance in Code
Per code, every 3-5 years2017
Inflation?
Annually
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Annually
Capital Expansion Fees
Step II
23
•Approximately 20% increase from current fee levels
•Proposed fee increases (Step II) are 90% of full fee levels recommend in 2017
•Current fees (Step I) are 75% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect
calculation error
Step II - 90% of full fee levels
Land Use Type Unit N'hood Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police
Gen.
Gov't
Step II
Total
Current
Total
%
Increase
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,549 $2,187 $379 $212 $517 $4,844 $4,018 21%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,074 $2,928 $513 $287 $697 $6,498 $5,387 21%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,264 $3,197 $558 $312 $761 $7,092 $5,879 21%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,288 $3,230 $567 $317 $772 $7,174 $5,949 21%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,550 $3,601 $631 $353 $860 $7,994 $6,627 21%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$0 $0 $478 $267 $1,306 $2,051 $1,709 20%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$0 $0 $112 $62 $308 $482 $402 20%
24
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Option A
Based on the City’s current
Capital Improvement Plans:
•Option B does not increase
program revenue, provides
approximately 80% of necessary
funding to mitigate proportional
impacts of development
•Option A includes the
proportionate cost attributable
for mitigation of the impacts of
new development on the
transportation system, including
new streets, intersection
improvements, and multi-modal
improvements
Option A
Land Use Type Unit Option A Option B
%
Increase
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,205 $1,827 21%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,095 $3,392 21%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,317 $4,404 21%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,217 $5,150 21%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,664 $5,520 21%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$8,113 $6,721 21%
Office and Other Services $5,977 $4,951 21%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft.$1,929 $1,598 21%
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Teresa Roche, Joaquin ‘Keen’ Garbiso
Date: August 20, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2018 Benefit Review & 2019 Benefit Updates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (a brief paragraph or two that succinctly summarizes important
points that are covered in more detail in the body of the AIS.)
Will provide a plan performance overview for 2016 & 2017 related to claims and administrative
costs associated with our reserve fund policy. In addition, the 2018 health plan updates will be
shared based on utilization and data analysis with the City’s benefit consultant HUB
International and their data analytic tool, Innovu, and employee feedback
We will go over health plan updates for 2019 and provide benefit plan opportunities into 2020.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
(Work session questions should be designed to gather direction from Council without requiring
Councilmembers to make a decision.)
1. What questions does CFC have about our market driven benefits?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION (details of item – History, current policy, previous Council
actions, alternatives or options, costs or benefits, considerations leading to staff conclusions, data
and statistics, next steps, etc.)
All background information is contained in the attachments and will be discussed in detail during
the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
Attachment 1: CFC: Benefits Review
1
Council Finance Committee:
Benefits Review
August 20, 2018
Agenda
2
•2016 & 2017 Medical/Rx Summary
•2018 Changes
•2019 Options
•On the Horizon
Benefits’ Philosophy
3
We attract and retain exceptional talent by offering attractive,competitive benefits as part
of our overall culture of wellbeing.
As an employer of choice and industry leader,we educate and engage employees and
their families,in their health and financial wellness as a component of the City’s Total
Rewards strategy.
We collaborate with colleagues,City Council,and strategic partners to continually
evaluate and improve employee benefits while also responsibly stewarding City resources.
Total Rewards
4
5
2016 -2017 Medical & Rx Summary
•2016 Total Plan Costs: $21.9M; Per Employee Per Month: $1,076
•2017 Total Plan Costs: $21.0M; Per Employee Per Month: $1,006
•6.5% Decrease due to:
•Membership
•Large Claimants Reduced
•Rx Savings $1.2M
•Increase in Generic Utilization
•Overall Good Year
•Benefits’ Fund Balance above Policy Minimum
6
Passive Open Enrollment: 74% participation
UMR & RxBenefits
•Deductible change: $300/$600 to $400/$800
•Rx Generic Copay: $5 to $10
•2018 Rx Renewal: 12% decrease (~$378K)
•Premium increase: 5%
Delta Dental
•100% Preventive Care for both networks
•Monthly premium increase, $.54 -$2.16
Changes in 2018
Vision Service Plan (VSP)
•Increase plan allowance for frames and
contacts
•Added KidsCare program
•Monthly premium increase, $.76 -$2.39
Aflac Implementation
•Effective July 2018
•Accident Coverage (~700 enrolled)
•Critical Illness (~600 enrolled)
•Phase II rollout for non-benefit eligible 4th
QTR
7
•CBU Commitments
•Total Compensation Committee
•RFP for pre-65 Retiree Health Coverage
•Analysis shows a potential increase to the PPO self-funded plan by as much as 22%
•Net impact of $3 million in total funding
•High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) w/ Health Savings Account (HSA)
•Align with Total Rewards Philosophy -Choice
•Same provider (UMR) & Self-funded
•Funding rates would be 10%-15% below current PPO plan
•Potential HSA employer contribution
•Telemedicine
•Affordable Health Premium
•Provide a premium subsidy for low income employees <$40K (n=70)
•Amount TBD
2019 Plan Options
8
•RFP: FSA and HSA Administration
•Leverage Benefit and Wellness strategies & programs
•Addition of Personalized Benefits
On the Horizon
9Thank you