HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 02/25/2019 -
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
February 25, 2019
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the January 28P
th
P Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Child Care Incentive / Fee Waivers 25 minutes S. Beck-Ferkiss
A. Molzer
2. Re-appropriation Review 20 minutes L. Pollack
3. Mulberry Metro District Application 30 minutes J. Birks
4. Water Allotment Management Program 30 minutes A. Neel
L. Hans
Other Business: Online Use Tax Form
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2018 - 2019
RVSD 02/15/19 mnb
Feb 25th
Child Care Incentive / Fee Waivers 25 min
S. Beck-
Ferkiss
A. Molzer
Re-appropriation Review 20 min L. Pollack
Mulberry Metro District Application 30 min J. Birks
Water Allotment Management Program 30 min A. Neel
L. Hans
Mar 18th
Development Review Fee Update 30 min T. Leeson
Stormwater - NECCO 30 min L. Smith
T. Connor
Apr 15th
2018 Rebate Results 20 min J. Poznanovic
Vine/Lemay TCEF Funding 20 min C. Crager
Parks/Median/Parks Refresh Design / Maintenance Plan Framework 30 min M. Calhoon
K. Friesen
May 20th
GERP Review 30 min T. Storin
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• 2020 Budget Revision – Aug
• 2019 Annual Adjustment Ordinance - Sep
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
1/28/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff (via phone), Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Jill Oropeza, Kevin
Gertig, Carol Webb, Lance Smith, Ken Mannon, Stu Reeve, Chief Swoboda, Greg Yeager,
Erik Martin, Jerrod Kinsman, Travis Storin, Jennifer Poznanovic, Andres Gavaldon, Tyler
Marr, Joe Wimmer, Ashley Macdonald, John Duval, Zach Mozer, Jo Cech, Katie Ricketts,
Laurie Kadrich, Noelle Currell, Clay Frickey, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Dale Adamy, R1ST.org, Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce, Ben Walker, Innosphere
____________________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:07 am.
Approval of Minutes from the December 17P
th
P Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ken Summers moved for
approval. Ross Cunniff seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
NOTE: Agenda was modified due to time limitations. The Child Care Incentive / Fee Waiver agenda item was moved
to the February 25P
th
P Council Finance Committee meeting.
A. Utility Lab Building Partnership
Jill Oropeza, Director, Sciences
Carol Webb, Deputy Director, Utilities
Lance Smith, Director, FP&A
Design and Construction of City Laboratory Facilities in Partnership with Innosphere
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City proposes to construct a new facility that will house the Utilities Water Quality Laboratory, Pollution
Control Laboratory, and the Watershed Program (collectively the Water Quality Services Division). Utilities
currently operates two separate laboratories which are in separate buildings and which have not been
significantly renovated since the 1980s. Costs associated with construction of the new facility would be split
evenly between the Water Fund and the Wastewater Fund.
The proposal for a new facility stems from the completion of a laboratory master plan funded in the 2017/2018
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Construction of a new facility is currently included in the Utilities Capital
2
Improvement Plan at a cost of $20 million. Preliminary design of the facility is included in the 2019/2020 City
Council adopted budget.
The Master Plan considered several potential locations for the new facility, ultimately identifying the Drake
Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) as the preferred location. Separately, the City received a proposal to
construct a new facility in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Innosphere (a high-tech incubator) on a parcel
adjacent to and west of the Innosphere’ s current facility, located at 320 E. Vine. A subsequent cost-benefit
evaluation of these two alternatives indicated that the partnership with Innosphere offers the highest cost-
benefit to the City, and also benefits the Innosphere.
The expected cost a laboratory in partnership with Innosphere based on conceptual design is $13.5M. Prior
appropriations reduce the necessary future appropriations to $10.5M, with $4.25M from the Water Fund and
$6.25M from the Wastewater Fund.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support pursuing a partnership with Innosphere for the construction of a new
laboratory facility?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Water Quality Services Division
The City currently operates two analytical laboratories; the Water Quality Laboratory (WQL) located at the
Water Treatment Facility (WTF), and the Pollution Control Laboratory (PCL) located at the Drake Water
Reclamation Facility (DWRF), and a Watershed Program, located in the Water Production Division main office
building. These functions operate as the Water Quality Services Division and provide critical laboratory and
watershed services for Utilities customers and the community, including:
• Compliance testing for safe drinking water in the water distribution system and in customer homes,
including bacteriological testing, lead and copper testing, and testing for taste and odor compounds
• Accurate and timely water quality data to meet the operational, planning and management needs of the
Utilities, other City Departments, and regional water services providers.
• Analytical support for compliance and process optimization at the City’s two water reclamation facilities and
associated programs.
• Surface water quality monitoring of the Poudre River and local streams and waterbodies
Discussion / Next Steps:
Mike Beckstead; this is similar to the Firehouse Alley parking garage arrangement
Darin Atteberry; in the past there has been some question about whether a facility is included in our CIP - this
series of appropriations leading to this - a logical progression - our partnership with Innosphere helps
accomplish numerous objectives with wet labs in the community and it significantly lowers our costs as opposed
to a standalone - this is something that has been thought thru and planned and is not impacting the General
Fund - it has planned in the rate structure. One question we have been asked; If we don’t use these dollars for
this purpose what are the other priorities within the utilities?
Ross Cunniff; It looks like both the Drake option and the Innosphere option are in proximity to various river
areas. Can we be assured that if the city is putting money into this it will staying well within the letter of the
code as far as buffers?
3
Carol Webb; the Innosphere option has gone through conceptual review and that issue wasn’t raised - storm water
planning and management for the Innosphere site so I don’t see that as an issue - we haven’t done that level of
analysis for the Drake site
Darin Atteberry; I will confirm and follow up with Ross and the Council via email. Laurie Kadrich and Clay Frickey
from CDNS are here.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; requested a follow up memo from John Duval on whether the partnership building would fall into
the city development review process or the normal development review process.
John Duval; it sounds like it will be built by Innosphere so it will probably go through the city’s normal land use
review process.
Ross Cunniff; Did you do a benefit comparison of the retro fit option? Including whatever the opportunities are
there?
Carol Webb; as far as renovations to the current facility - we took that option through a benefit / cost analysis
4
Ross Cunniff; slide 14 does not include the partnership piece and slide 18 (included above) show a slightly different
benefit comparison
Carol Webb; the collaboration was only completed on the Innosphere option because that came at a later date
after the master plan was completed – recognizing that those collaborative opportunities were part of the
analysis of the Innosphere option - It was only really included in evaluating the Innosphere option compared to
the preferred option identified in the master plan.
Ross Cunniff; I did some measurements and came up with my own estimate - Drake Water Reclamation Facility
and applied that same non-zero to alternative 3B and came up to 1 digit of significance -Innosphere is at 3.6 -
the much cheaper renovation of the existing facility came in at 3.7. To me it is not a clear slam dunk on cost and
benefits - it looks Innosphere slightly less expensive capital costs. I would like to see the same analysis done on
renovating the existing building.
Carol Webb; point out the criteria of proximity to customers - evaluates that collaboration piece because that
proximity creates the collaborative opportunities versus water quality lab - while it is not explicit, I think it was
certainly integrated into the proximity piece of that. The Innosphere option provides facility that is equal
distance between the two - the Drake option is farther away and closer to the Mulberry facility which is a key
sampling site which played a role in Innosphere being a favorable option.
Ross Cunniff; run the numbers to make sure my assumptions are correct - doing the benefit comparison on slide
18
5
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; on the partnership terms, I would like to see more details on costs that are shared with the condo
association when it comes to grounds keeping / roof repair, etc. The city sometimes is very generous with terms
like these with partner organizations and I want to make sure that we are both paying our fair share. Before I give
my go ahead, I would like to see more detail around the condo association costs, etc. Who is paying / how does
that cost get put out?
Ken Summers; developing the condo association - are the only tenants going to be the city and Innosphere or do
we anticipate leasing space to others?
6
Carol Webb; Innosphere will lease the space on the ground floor. The city will own floors 1 and 2 and
Innosphere has title to 3P
rd
P floor to lease and the HOA has title to the grounds.
Darin Atteberry; is it possible that Innosphere could lease out space to non Innosphere users?
Are there limitations that we have placed on that 3rd floor? Guessing that is for Innosphere clients - Innosphere
could partner with someone else to lease that 3P
rd
P floor space.
Ben Walker; we could but that is not our plan. The way we do our leasing today client that goes through our
onboarding process or could be in bio tech space and just lease the space and not be a client consistent with the
way the current Innosphere space works.
Darin Atteberry; Mike Freeman was leasing to non Innosphere clients - now mostly filled up by clients
Ben Walker; or clients that have gone through the program and graduated and are using the space
Ken Summers; the cost or need for the condo association - If we own and are not leasing and incurring expense
for a condo association fee - can Innosphere manage the lease? Trying to understand the need for condo
association multiple floors - owned by separate entities
Mike Beckstead; The ground would be co owed via condo association - we would have title to the 2 floors which
would be metered individually - the Condo Association would take care of the shared costs; landscaping, parking
etc. We would pay the proportional share of those kinds of costs.
Carol Webb; we are still discussing how we apportion the costs for the common elements - May make sense to
share more. Our floors would be managed through our facilities department, but the common elements would
be managed by the 3P
rd
P party that works for the Condo Association.
Darin Atteberry; Police Training Facility is a different structure- 50/50 - no Condo Association
- Governing structure set up. What I think Ken may be asking - there is a good amount of structure around
Condo Associations and HOAs - that might mean additional costs – make sure the city doesn’t bear any more
than its fair share. Ditch company governance - If we own the majority of the building - do we have the majority
of say on the Condo Association / HOA? I think those 3 things are embedded in this conversation.
Condo Association / HOA seems more expensive - why aren’t we doing it like the Police Training Facility?
Mike Beckstead; we migrated initially toward the HOA since it is not a 50/50 partnership like the Police Training
Facility - if we are 2/3 of the building, we have 2/3 of the HOA vote. Judy Schmidt is not here but she is closest
to this. The teams have worked very closely to minimize costs - the existing Innosphere organization will do that
for their floor - they are already doing that for their parking, landscaping etc. We are not anticipating having to
hire property management.
Darin Atteberry; when I hear HOA / Condo Association I think private sector model. That is fairly unusual for us
– public like the police building - 50/50 governance - Tool to helps define who is responsible for what in the
public/ private relationship.
John Duval; ownership through a condo is based on the fact you want to control your space so that you can sell
your unit easily. An HOA is established to divide up the responsibility for sharing the costs - HOA bylaws that
7
would be created for this will have to be agreed to as far as who is going to have the voting rights - making sure
that we are in control of most of the decisions - may be some that will need to be unanimous - we usually work
through those.
Ken Summers; who is running the administrative piece of the HOA / making sure things get done?
John Duval; the parking garage example - controlled by the Board of Directors - they will decide who to hire to
do the work - like the parking garage the agreement is between the HOA and the city - the city pays for work it
will do - managing - City gets it 2/3 work done - cost sharing. We could have the contract being with the city as
well - maintaining the common areas - Innosphere paying their 1/3 - it doesn’t have to be a private entity
Ken Summers; could that be arranged outside of a legal structure?
John Duval; problem is the ownership of the units - making sure the city is in control of its 2 floors and can sell
them if desired - Co-owners like the police training facility - hard to sell your share - Loveland would not want
any other partners - condo units are easier to sell - all in one building
Ken Summers: brand new, state of the art lab that will hopefully last well over the 30 years useful life.
Would we anticipate selling at some point in time? Change of use and functionality
John Duval; the city has 1P
st
P right to purchase - one option would be for the city own the whole building and lease
part back to Innosphere.
ACTION ITEM:
Mike Beckstead; we can take the action to explore other comparative options to lower costs within the next 6-8
weeks. In was our intent to have those other agreements with us when we come back in May.
Ken Summers; what are the objectives we are trying to achieve - shared maintenance of parking, common grounds
- Most cost effective, lease structure, admin, legal entanglements - achieve economies of scale and payback. What
does the outsourcing option look like?
Carol Webb; we would provide some basic minimal lab services and contracting out the rest of the services, but
this option didn’t meet our world class commitments. We can provide more follow up.
8
Ken Summers; question regarding costs on slide 21 (see above)
Lance Smith; if we paid cash for the building at Drake it would costs $22M today and
if we financed that with debt the total cost with interest would be $32M
Same with the Innosphere option above - cash is $13.5M with debt it would be $19.6M
9
Mike Beckstead; the current thinking is we pay cash - but Lance has listed a debt financing option just for
comparison purposes - some of the $13.5M has already been appropriated - some of the funds already have
money appropriated to remodel the existing labs - we would re purpose - need a little more than the $4M out of
the water fund and $6.25 out of the wastewater fund – that combined with what has already been appropriated
totals the $13.5M. $24-28M cash available in each fund respectively
Mayor Troxell; this is a great proposal- shows forward and collaborative thinking.
I would like to see some synergistic ideas - I bet there would be companies proposing sensors that could be used
As part of our active wasteshed management, by co locating, there are benefits to the program that Innosphere
Is offering that could help solve some of the challenges with higher regulatory - help meet our needs and create
opportunities for businesses - Key synergic opportunities - I know this is kind of speculative but that is one of the
benefits of being right in the Innosphere ecosystem in locating some of our city services.
Question - what is going to happen to the space that will no longer be needed? Will it be modified or absorbed?
Carol Webb; one area would be repurposed as garage space and the Drake facility there is a planned expansion
to accommodate treatment training - it would be deconstructed to make room for that
Mayor Troxell; challenges with wet lab space on different floors - the design needs to capture water events on the
3P
rd
P floor to make sure that doesn’t translate into issues on other floors
Carol Webb; our lab design architect on the team who will be specifically looking out for those types of issues.
Darin Atteberry; thank you to Kevin and Carol - your analysis is very thorough - What I am hearing from the
Committee are questions regarding the’ how’ we are going to do it and that is where we will spend our time.
B. Police Training - LEED Options
Ken Mannon, Operation Services Director
Stu Reeve, Energy Manager
Greg Yeager, Deputy Chief
Jerrod Kinsman, Lieutenant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is to request City Council Finance approve a partial waiver of LEED certification
requirements for the new Police Regional Training Campus (Training Campus). In 2006, City Council adopted
resolution 2006-096 which establishes a goal for all new construction projects of 5,000 square feet or more to
achieve LEED Gold certification, except under limited circumstances. The City of Loveland, which is an equal
partner in the Training Campus, does not have any specific LEED requirements for construction projects. City
staff is requesting a partial LEED waiver in an effort to partner with Loveland. Per Section 3 of Resolution 2006-
096, City staff is requesting approval to prioritize budget dollars for energy efficiency items and look to design,
construct and certify the Admin/Classroom building only to the highest LEED certification practical. The
remainder of the project, an indoor firing range, a driving track, and a skid/skills pad, would follow LEED
principles, and prioritize energy efficiencies but not be included in the LEED certification boundary.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The design of the Training Campus has been underway for over a year and Fort Collins and Loveland have been
discussing LEED certification for several months. The Training Campus is expected to include an
10
administration/classroom building, an indoor firing range, a driving track, and a skid/skills pad. In 2006, City
Council adopted resolution 2006-096 which establishes a goal for all new construction projects of 5,000 square
feet or more to achieve LEED Gold certification except in limited circumstances, which include if it is not
technically or economically feasible to meet the LEED Gold standard. The City of Loveland is an equal partner in
the design, construction and operation of the Training Campus, and both cities will share the costs equally.
Loveland does not have any LEED requirements for its new construction projects, but they do support building
efficiencies where there is a return on investment (ROI) of 10 years or less.
City staff is requesting approval to prioritize budget dollars for energy efficiency items for the entire project, but
only design, construct and certify the Admin/Classroom building to the highest LEED certification practical. The
remainder of the project would follow LEED principles, and prioritize energy efficiencies but not be included in the
certification boundary or process.
The site location of this project will minimize the LEED credits available and if we include the indoor firing range
in the LEED certification boundary it would make it impossible to achieve LEED Gold and very difficult to achieve
LEED Silver. Indoor firing ranges add many challenges with the requirement of constant air exchanges for
personnel safety, the desire to eliminate natural lighting which causes glare or shadows on targets, eliminate
windows for views to the outdoors, and the need to use very specific materials is problematic to achieve
recyclable or low VOC requirements. These required items for LEED certification would certainly bring down the
certification level for the Admin/Classroom building and firing range and will add significant cost impacts to an
already tight budget.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
11
Discussion / Next Steps:
Very challenging location - no transportation -site credits are very difficult to achieve
Ross Cunniff; do we get credit - will we be certifying the shooting range?
42 of 110 credits - is that the entire project?
Ken Mannon: certified, then silver, gold and platinum - yes, that 42 of 100 is the entire project
12
FAA on slide 8 not FTA
Ross Cunniff: Thank you for work with Energy Board - Susan McFadden sent us an email 2-3 weeks ago talking
about the process and need according to the 2006 Resolution to do the energy modeling and then decide the
LEED level with the City Manager having the authority to modify - Did that get resolved?
Ken Mannon; yes, we met with Susan McFadden (Industry Expert) and Alan Braslau on 1/16 to discuss concerns
- they worked with us to modify the resolution we are planning to bring forward to Council - they were
comfortable with our direction - their goal is to make two facilities as energy efficient as possible with the goals
and dollars we have.
Kelly DiMartino; there were 3 main things that I took away from that conversation;
1) The upfront work that was done - was different by working with Loveland as the lead than would have
been if we were the lead – we would have preferred a different process and sequencing that what
happened
2) Their concern was some of what was being stated in proposal was a bit misleading because some of the
costs were based on mis sequencing of information
3) More than wordsmithing – it was about let’s not be unnecessarily malign the LEED program with that
resolution. Clarifying that it is the uniqueness of this project partnership that is requiring it to come to
Council instead of being at City Manager’s discretion.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I’m still hesitant to say let’s go forward - I would like an analysis of the greenhouse gas impact of
the difference - to understand the benefits of greenhouse gas that we are not able to afford at this time.
Doesn’t have to be before the funding review.
Mayor Troxell; I am supportive - thank you to Stacey Baumgarter and Alan Braslau and others from the Energy
Board as well as Stu Reeve’ s involvement and expertise as an energy expert - this is a really good proposal
coming forward - to get the project out the other side
Challenges of working with Loveland - it is their land use - we are a 50% partner - the approach that was taken is
a thoughtful and measured one – best path forward at this time.
ACTION ITEM
Darin Atteberry; one thing would be good for Council - a separate Thursday packet memo
to reiterate the commitment and the fact that we have Council policy direction on city owned facilities to be
LEED Gold. Background memo - 2 pages or less that says here is what our policy says and here is our portfolio of
facilities - when that policy was adopted and what we have done with it since – we have an important story to
tell – yes, this is an exception - I don’t want anyone to think we are deviating from that commitment and policy
direction. Take the opportunity and share that story - you could even tie it to the appropriation ordinance, but
we should equip Council with that information - This is a good story and the reason we do this is to lead and to
show private business that this is a good investment.
Mike Beckstead; we will move forward with Bond Ordinance assuming $18.5 with LEED waiver commitments –
same thing for the appropriation
13
Ken Mannon; key is we need to get this out on the street as soon as we can - goal is still to stay within that
$18.5M
Darin Atteberry; this has been a momentous effort and amazing work and has been in the works for a couple of
years. We so appreciate you; Ken, Brian Hergott, Stu Reeves and Greg Yeager - we greatly appreciate the
patience you have had and the phenomenal leadership through the process.
Ken Summers; we want to thank you for your work with the Energy Board - kudos for the fact that these are
individuals who are committed to maximizing energy efficiency for the buildings we are involved in - prudent
judicial process, understanding budget constraints, understanding the challenges of LEED certification criteria
giving the site and partnership and the moving parts and uniqueness of this situation.
C. FOP Contract
Jeff Swoboda, Chief of Police
Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager
Collective Bargaining Unit Salaries and Supplemental Budget Appropriation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Per the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) agreed to by the City of Fort Collins and the Fraternal Order of
Police (FOP) in 2018, the positions within the Collective Bargaining Unit (CBU) shall be compensated at the 4P
th
P
rank of 12 Front Range comparison agencies. Significant changes in jurisdictions’ salaries which were previously
much lower than the City have resulted in large increases for the majority of bargaining unit positions, which
creates a shortage from what was budgeted and will require a supplemental appropriation. The projected total
cost of these increased salaries, including associated increases in overtime and percentage-based contributions
such as retirement and retiree health is approximately $585,000.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City and FOP agreed to a three-year CBA in the fall of 2018. One component of the comprehensive contract
was the setting of pay and salaries for nine positions within the CBU. Within the 2019 budget, Police Services
staff was budgeted for a 3.5% salary increase. The CBA states that actual salary data will be collected in late
December and early January. With data now finalized, it is clear that some jurisdictions have made significant
increases in their police salaries and the 3.5% that was budgeted will need supplemental appropriation in order
to meet the contractual obligation of paying the equivalent of the 4P
th
P rank among the Front Range comparison
agencies listed in the contract.
The following chart highlights what was initially budgeted for salary, overtime, and benefits, what the
contractual increase is, and what the gap is between the budgeted amounts for each category
UProjected UBudget UShortfall
Salary 23,237,596 22,842,724 (394,872)
Overtime 60,000 0 (60,000)
Benefits 7,794,591 7,666,841 (127,750)
Total Compensation 31,092,187 30,509,565 (582,622)
14
The positional breakdown in terms of what salary increases will be are listed below:
Job Title Contract Increase
Community Service Officer 6.03%
Sr Supervisor, CSO 6.03%
Police Officer 6.03%
Police Corporal 6.03%
Police Sergeant 6.08%
Police Lieutenant 3.00%
Emergency Commun Dispatcher 3.29%
Sr Supervisor, Emergency Comms 3.65%
Sr Manager, Emergency Comms 3.00%
Staff plans to bring forward an appropriation ordinance on February 5P
th
P to the full Council for consideration to
help cover the gap in the Police Services budget.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee support bringing forward of the supplemental appropriation to cover
the contractual cost?
Discussion / Next Steps:
15
Current overtime budget for Police Services is approximately $2M.
Ross Cunniff; yes, I do support bringing it forward. The remainder of that GF surplus - I am interested in applying
some of that in finishing some of the Climate Action Goals that we didn’t achieve in the budget this cycle. Is
there sales tax on the surplus?
Mike Beckstead; we just looked at sales tax – the use tax would be considered one-time funding, so we focused
on the ongoing additional revenue that we didn’t include in the 2019-20 BFO.
Ken Summers; I am good
Mayor Troxell; question about OT - Does that mean that we are going to stay lean on numbers?
How do you budget for more overtime? Additional $60K for OT
Kelly DiMartino; we took the assumptions that went into the original budget in terms of the amount of overtime
hours that could occur - presuming that is an accurate assumption - this is how much more that it will cost with
salary increase of 3% not a change in terms of hours – change in salary
Ross Cunniff; What the policy considerations were for the other communities / municipalities that significantly
increased their salaries? Wondering if we are feeding off of other policies? Are they using Fort Collins as a
metric / part of their analysis?
Mayor Troxell; great question - get caught in the positive feedback loop that drives costs higher
D. Non-Profit Facility Lease Rate Framework
Ashley Macdonald, Real Estate Services Coordinator
Joe Wimmer, Graduate Management Assistant
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Real Estate Services’ new approach for determining less than fair market value rental rates for nonprofit
organizations renting City facilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Real Estate Services developed a new administrative policy for determining rental rates for nonprofit
organizations. Historically, reduced rental rates for nonprofits were individually considered. As requests for
reduced rates arise more frequently, Real Estate Services needs a consistent framework for determining
appropriate rates. The City’s current seventeen leases with nonprofits are highly variable in regard to rent
amount and rent discount based on fair market value. The intent of the new administrative policy is to make
rates more predictable and equitable and allow for consistent negotiations. This new administrative policy may
alter rental rates for current tenants after their present lease expires and is up for renewal beyond the extension
period.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Real Estate Services is seeking feedback on the proposed administrative policy for determining reduced rental
rates for nonprofit organizations.
16
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City currently has seventeen leases with nonprofit organizations. Annual rent ranges from less than 1% of
fair market value to 95% of fair market value. Nine nonprofits are paying less than 1% of the fair market value
with a $25-$600/year lease.
In 2014, Ordinance No. 085 was approved to amend City Code, Sec 23-114 Disposition of property interests for
less than fair market value, to provide guidelines for leasing or selling City owned property for less than market
value and/or for a term exceeding 5 years in length. Recently, a few tenants currently leasing City owned
buildings have requested additional reductions to their existing lease rate (e.g. Global Village Museum and The
Center for Fine Art Photography).
Historically, rental rates for nonprofit organizations were determined on a case-by-case basis after nonprofits
contacted the City seeking an available facility. The limited structure for determining an appropriate rental
amount resulted in inequitable rates among the organizations and a lack of transparency regarding the
evaluation criteria. The new framework will determine rental amounts based on the nonprofit’s services to the
community. Prospective nonprofit organizations will be evaluated using consistent criteria and procedure. The
evaluation process and rubric are attached.
Real Estate Services determines fair market value through comparative market analysis, a method used by real
estate appraisers and other real estate professionals. These values are analyzed quarterly or as needed to
ensure the City is abreast of real estate market changes and fluctuations. It is important to note that each lease
negotiation is unique based on the level of services available and amenities provided or needed in the space.
Due to the disparate characteristics of City owned properties, the policy for determining rates will not be
applicable to all leases with nonprofit organization. Properties/organizations that may be exempt from the
process include historical properties, CSURF, and organizations with lease-purchase agreements.
The new framework is estimated to impact four current tenants if they were to renew their leases. Reduced
nonprofit lease agreements and/or long-term lease agreements would still need approval by the City Manager
or Council per the guidelines outlined in the City code.
Discussion / Next Steps:
17
17 current leases with non-profits - scale to be used as a tool - range of discount - historical designation
Ross Cunniff; I like the idea of a rubric - a way to analyze the alignment of lease rates which is a budget impact to
the City. There may be some political fallout if we go this direction - how much time do we have to engage with
these organizations so they can understand the criteria and impact -robust outreach to the effected people and
to the general public.
Joe Wimmer; one of the leases (Global Village Museum) is up for renewal next year - there is a plan to introduce
the new criteria - Intent would be to meet with non-profits in our current inventory so they are up to date with
the changes and the new application and rubric for reduced rent.
Kelly DiMartino; we have also been working with Social Sustainability and Cultural Services as they are the ones
who interact with these agencies on an ongoing basis to ensure that they fully engaged on where we are
heading.
Mayor Troxell; there is a Council priority on integration of our museum services - I am meeting with Museum of
Discovery and Kevin Jones - we should be thinking about all of our cultural services under a common umbrella -
Some have great potential but are on the margin (Global Village, Museo and others) If we think about our
Cultural Services in a common framework - curation - how do we invest in all – how do we integrate across all -
one we seldom talk about which is an incredible resource is the Lindenmeir Site. This is where Jim McDonald
and FoCo Creates come into play - rubric is a great idea but there is a certain class of tenants who provide a
certain service - how that tells a key part of our story in our community - an asset - how do we integrate it
more? what about Lee Martinez Park - the family wants to do exhibits there - how can we integrate these in a
common framework within our Cultural Services. CSU has curation, cultural and scientific - county tax - that
might be something that would lead to where that might make sense - think of them not just as tenants but the
rubric does bring out a lot of the color and service to our community. I am supportive of what you are doing.
Ross Cunniff; to Darin - Have you given thought to having anyone appointed to the evaluation committee from
the broader community in addition to staff?
18
Ashley Macdonald; we did not consider bringing in community for the committee - we want to have a strong
perspective on City Standards that we need to maintain on the building - not opposed to this but sometimes the
rubric meetings can include confidential information.
Ross Cunniff; this is an Administrative Policy – but that we consider having citizens like a BFO team.
Darin Atteberry; good question - let us bounce this around a bit - if we have a good process and one that the
Council owns and a good rubric methodology. Currently, there are groups that come in unexpectedly and
request to lease a building - ties to other city objectives - so it is a good thing to have a process in place that is
fairly structured - I like that we are thinking about this in a systems standpoint - I would suggest that we build in
some flexibility as well to address those directly tied to a Council objective - maybe exceptions would go to
Council.
Kelly DiMartino; this is designed to provide predictability and more consistency in how the evaluation is done -
this is a starting point for negotiations - it doesn’t prohibit flexibility - we have built into the rubric a tie to
Council priorities - how directly they are connected.
Ross Cunniff; hard to make the rubric completely objective - might be some disagreement on how the rubric is
being applied (scoring) impact 2 on one maybe not 8 - could have significant impact on policy.
Darin Atteberry; brief conversation at LPT conversation - Gerry Horak provided some input around the criteria
which he felt was still qualitative and subjective - the more quantitative we can be that would help
Ken Summers; tough to be totally objective and the challenge if we go to this is how it is communicated /
implemented / making sure that this evaluation committee recognizes the impact on services that are provided
for an organization. Justify from an objective standpoint but we need to drill down to understand the population
being served - how many folks are impacted - it becomes an interesting prospect - maybe they charge for some
services - nonprofits - How many vacant buildings do we want to have that the city owns? Are we going to be
like Real Estate services - do they market to the community as a whole? Lots of issues to consider and we need
to be aware of potential impacts of metrics we are trying to use - timing and how we implement are important –
perception of a sales tax increase and then increasing rent charged to nonprofits -
Ashley Macdonald; when these non-profit organizations come to our department and are looking for space -
they ask, ‘how do we quality for the $25 a year rent?’ Our challenge is to provide clear guidelines or objectives
and conditions - this is intended to be a tool for our department to provide a recommendation. There is
ultimately that opportunity for Council to say we appreciate your recommendation but here is what we want to
do for this organization.
Ken Summers; it is not so much a new nonprofit coming in and asking - it is the one who is paying the low annual
rent - there needs to be a lot of communication and interaction so that everyone understands the process -
reapply as current leases expire
Darin Atteberry; the city doesn’t go out and buy property and anticipate leasing it out - we will lease it out to try
to bring in some revenue or make an opportunity for a nonprofit - From a real estate standpoint, our holdings
are typically for future use - we are leasing those as we think there is some potential revenue in the short term –
19
but we have a long term use planned - we have decisions on whether to lease it out at market rate - trying to
benefit the taxpayers - then we have the complexity of nonprofits – it happens through Real Estate, Finance or
Economic Health.
Ashley Macdonald; it is pretty rare that we actively market city owned property for rent or sale - city owned
buildings that have a future use we try to leave those available for future uses such Broadband expansion and
other purposes.
Mayor Troxell; City Give can work with non-profits - help them on their business models – such as Global Village
and Museo - great volunteers doing great things – but not creating a business model that makes them
sustainable -Integrated Cultural Resources - proving their value to a wider customer base -There are resources
there but when you are on the margin you are working to stay alive
Ken Summers; if we give a substantial discount to a non-profit - Create greater capacity and sustainability
through City Care - it would be interesting to lease a non-profit a city facility at a graduated rate to encourage
that.
Ashley Macdonald; that is where we are at with Global Village – a gradual increase over time.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mike Beckstead; We have improved the usability of the online Use Tax Form and more information to follow but
wanted Council to know we are working on this.
Meeting Adjourned at 12:08 pm
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Adam Molzer
Date: February, 25, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Development Incentives for Childcare Providers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins community has more demand for childcare than available slots in childcare
centers and in-home centers. While the City already provides scholarships to low-income
parents, provides City facilities when possible to be used as childcare centers, partners with the
school district to fund enrichment programs, and partners with providers and the Early Childcare
Council to advocate and problem solve, there is still a significant need for more accessible and
affordable childcare in Fort Collins. This item is seeking guidance regarding whether the City
should add development incentives to the list of support provided by the City.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is there interest in providing development incentives for Childcare providers?
2. If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of affordable tuition slots made
available to income-qualified families?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Recent data collected by the Early Childhood Council of Larimer County shows an unmet
demand for childcare in our community.
• Childcare slots for infants and toddlers provide only 25% of the need for this age
children.
• Only 65% of the need is met for preschool age children.
The lack of available childcare is a concern for local work force needs. It means some parents
will suffer distractions at work because their childcare situation is unstable or choose to take time
out of the workforce because childcare needs are unmet. Plus, the cost of childcare is a burden
for many working families, especially lower wage earners. This shortage in availability is caused
by a scarcity in both facilities and staff to run them. The focus of this project is on the facility
part of the equation because the City’s Economic Health Office and community partners such as
The Chamber of Commerce, Larimer County and the Early Childhood Council to name a few,
through Talent 2.0 and in other ways are already working on the talent side of the equation. The
demand for childcare has outpaced the supply for some time in the City and this is not the first
time the City has looked at this issue. See attachment 1 – Work Session Summary from October
25, 2011. This remains an issue both locally and nationally.
The State of Colorado has the most influence over regulations and policy for childcare providers.
They work closely with Larimer County who inspects facilities and monitors compliance with
state-wide programs. The City’s sphere of influence is limited in this arena. Still there are things
the City currently does to support this need and there are additional actions the City could
consider doing to incentivize the development of more childcare centers – both commercial
centers and in-home centers.
The City is already investing to support childcare in our city:
• City facilities house childcare programs and are offered are very low nonprofit rents (i.e.-
Teaching Tree at 424 Pine Street and previously Waldorf school at 906 Stuart Street).
• Competitive Process funding for scholarships and after school enrichment programs.
• Funding for the Early Childhood Council to address childcare workforce shortage issue.
• Partnering with the Chamber of Commerce and others on the Talent 2.0 Childcare Task
Force.
• Providing limited pre-construction funding and classroom expansion funds from the
2017-2018 BFO funds. This offer was only for the prior budget cycle and the current
budget cycle does not provide responsive funds for childcare activities.
Options to Explore:
The development arena provides another avenue to support this community need. There are
substantial City fees required to build new childcare centers. For example, two recently
constructed centers paid $168,000 and $245,000 respectively in City development fees. A waiver
program similar to the affordable housing fee waiver incentive could be established to waive
some or all of these fees. Waivers could be for the entire center because that would address the
scarcity issue or the program could be tailored to the affordable childcare slots provided to
address the affordability issue. Either way, the City would decide which fees to waive similar to
the Affordable Housing Fee Waiver program.
Affordable housing incentives are currently provided through the Land Use Code such as priority
processing and landscape reductions. These could be offered to childcare centers too. Currently,
staff is analyzing ways to bring development standard flexibility to affordable housing
development. That project could be expanded to include other social needs, including childcare.
The idea would be to flex standards not related to health and safety. These could be things like
off site infrastructure improvements or low impact design standards. The group that is working
on this for affordable housing could expand the project to include childcare development too.
In-home centers do not have the same development obligations. It is considered a home
occupation and is permitted in most of the City. While grants funds are available for the person
offering in-home care to help get them licensed and trained, funding is not available for limited
home modifications that might be needed to offer in-home childcare. The City has offered cluster
funding in the past to support needed commercial activity in the City. When this program is
rebooted, it could include an in-home childcare industry cluster to provide grants for egress
windows, fencing, seconds sinks for example. This gap was identified by the Early Childhood
Center.
Next Steps:
Staff is looking for direction from the Council Finance Committee on whether to continue to
explore ways to incentivize childcare in the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Work Session Summary October 25, 2011
This slide allows you to customize your image,
rather than using the default. See the Notes below.
1
Development Incentives for Childcare Providers
Sue Beck-Ferkiss and Adam Molzer
2-25-19
Questions for Consideration
2
1.Is there interest in providing development incentives for
Childcare providers?
2.If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of
affordable tuition slots made available to income-qualified families?
2
Community Needs
More
Child care overall
•25% of infant and
toddler needs
•65% of preschool age children
needs
More
affordable childcare
•More demand than
resources for
affordable slots
•Long waiting lists
for subsidies
More
in-home childcare
•These centers
closing at faster
rate than new ones
opening
3
Levels of Regulations
State
•Primary Regulator for Childcare Centers
•Set Staff Qualifications and Funds CCAP
County
•Inspections
•Coordinates CCAP with State
City
•Regulate Development of Facilities
•Funding Partner
4
What the City is already doing
City acts to lower barriers to increase childcare availability:
•2018 Funding:
•$200,000 Competitive Process
•$100,000 2017-2018 BFO (not continued)
•$75,000 to PSD from Parks and Recreation
•What was funded?
•Income-based scholarships and after-school programming
•Predevelopment and classroom expansion needs
•Talent 2.0 and workforce support
•Partner with PSD for enrichment programs
5
Possible additional City supports
6
Development Incentives
•Fee Waivers
•Flexible Development standards
Micro-grants
•Facility support for In-home Centers
Questions for Consideration
7
1.Is there interest in providing development incentives for
Childcare providers?
2.If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of
affordable tuition slots made available to income-qualified families?
7
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
October 28, 2011
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation
Services
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation
FROM: Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning
RE: Work Session Summary October 25, 2011, Item No. 4: Early Childhood Care and
Education
The Mayor and all City Councilmembers, except Wade Troxell, were present. Advance
Planning Director Joe Frank provided a brief presentation. Staff answering questions included
Joe Frank, Tess Heffernan, and Ken Waido.
Questions for City Council included:
1. Does Council have any comments or questions about what the City is currently doing in
the area of facilitating early childhood care and education in the community?
2. Compared to what the City is currently doing, does the Council want to consider
maintaining, refocusing and/or expanding the City’s efforts in facilitating early
childhood care and education services in the community?
3. If Council wishes to modify the City’s current efforts, what additional strategies should
be added to the current program?
The following is a summary of Council comments:
1. Council was supportive of maintaining the City’s current roles; and refocusing/modifying
those roles as described in the Snapshot Report. Council was interested in the City facilitating
early childhood care and education; Council was not interested in the City getting directly into
the business of providing child care.
2. Council was interested in first pursuing actions utilizing existing or small additional resources
(generally, actions identified in the Snapshot Report requiring “$” and “$$” level of resources).
There were no objections raised in regards to exploring any of the actions. Some
Councilmember’s expressed particular interest in exploring child care requirements for larger
business development; new sources of City funding (dedicated sales tax) for “bricks and mortar”;
tying City economic incentives, for example tax increment, to the provision of child care
services; removing barriers in the City’s land use code; linking child care to the City’s economic
development programs; incubating new child care providers; partnering with other agencies; and,
siting new child care facilities (and affordable housing) in the vicinity of well-established transit
routes. Council was also interested in measuring the impacts of actions in terms of what
difference(s) will result.
3. Council recommended City staff “reach out” to child care providers/agencies to tap their
expertise, suggesting that staff invite “10 providers/agencies” to meet to review the list of
“potential options for future City role, actions and strategies” and asking them for priorities
and/or other ideas. Also, ask them about the “root problem(s)” that prevent current providers
from meeting demand (in particular for low income families).
4. Council was supportive of emphasizing the value of “education” as a key component of City
policy and programs; not just “warehousing” children. Council was interested in understanding
how recent discussions with Poudre School District and Larimer County regarding “community
life centers” fit in this discussion. Council was interested in knowing more about City
programs/facilities that may be used as a surrogate for child care; and, if so, how is/can “early
childhood education” be built into these programs/facilities.
5. Council was interested in knowing more about the City employee benefit related to “100
hours per year of child care”. In particular, Council wanted to know more about the situations in
which this benefit is being used; and, what is the mean salary of employees overall. Some
councilmembers would like consideration be given to limiting this benefit to low income
employees.
6. Council would like an explanation of the apparent drop in total number of children served in
2011 compared to 2010 described in the attachment to the Snapshot Report.
7. Council was interested in knowing more about the demand for families who need special
hours of child care, beyond the traditional 8-5 working day. Are these needs being met? Council
was also interested in knowing more about the requirements for families to receive sliding scale
fees and Colorado Child Care Assistance subsidy.
8. Council was very complimentary and appreciative of staff efforts, information provided, and
the Council discussion. Council was very appreciative of the efforts of child care providers and
associated organizations.
Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Date: February 25, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of the 2019 Reappropriation Ordinance to appropriate prior year reserves.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to reappropriate monies in 2019 that were previously authorized by
City Council for various expenditures in 2018 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures
were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2018 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2018 and therefore, there was no known
vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be
completed during 2018 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of
the project in 2019
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2019 with unspent dollars
previously appropriated in 2018
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual
fund balances at the end of 2018 and reflect no change in Council policies.
Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows:
General Fund $350,230
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 48,261
Transportation Fund 584,000
Capital Projects Fund 25,000
Equipment Fund 900,000
Data and Communications Fund 103,000
Light and Power Fund 100,000
Total $2,110,491
Page 2
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support moving forward with the 2019 Reappropriation
Ordinance on the Consent Agenda at the March 5, 2019 Council meeting?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Executive Team has reviewed the Reappropriation requests to ensure alignment with
organization priorities and the Budget staff reviewed the requests to verify that all met qualification
requirements.
GENERAL FUND
Natural Areas
1) Instream Flows - $28,491
UPurpose for fundsU: The purpose of this offer is to fund work on instream flow related
matters. This budget has been utilized to support efforts to improve Poudre River Flows.
They have been invested to improve diversion structures and to plan and develop an instream
flow augmentation plan with the State of Colorado and numerous regional partners. The plan
requires collaboration from many agencies and potentially from the state legislature.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: While much progress has been made, there have been
obstacles to overcome which have resulted in delays. Thus, the funds allocated to the plan
have not yet been completely spent. The remaining funds in this budget will be used to
continue to support a revised IGA among the partners which was adopted by City Council in
2018. The funds will be fully expended in 2019.
Park Planning & Development
2) Community Opportunity Funds to Leverage Private Contributions- $25,000 (plus
an additional $25,000 in Capital Projects Fund totals $50,000 for request)
UPurpose for fundsU: Community Opportunity Fund funding is being requested to leverage a
private donation to improve Eastside Park. The funds will be used to pay the salary of a Park
Planner to design the park improvements.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Funds were not spent in 2018 due to the timing of the
project discussions and an agreement on how to move forward with the project came too late
in the year to complete the project.
Parks
3) Medians Lifecycle Funding- $20,490
Page 3
UPurpose for fundsU: The medians and streetscape offer provides funding for maintenance of
city owned medians along major arterials of the city. The lifecycle funding is used for
renovating aging medians including major plant replacement, re-mulching or rocking, and
irrigation system renovations
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Funds were not fully expended in 2018 due to
insufficient funding and time to complete the next lifecycle project. The re-appropriated
funds will be added to 2019 funding to renovate aging irrigation systems to assist with water
conservation efforts on the medians and streetscapes.
4) Parks Lifecycle Funding- $50,904 (plus an additional $9,546 in KFCG totals $60,450
for request)
UPurpose for fundsU: The Parks lifecycle program provides funding for repair and replacement
of park assets and infrastructure throughout the park system. Initiated in 1993, this program
supports repair, replacement and renovation of over 1,000 varied Park assets within many
different component categories including: buildings, fields, trails, courts, structures,
playgrounds, irrigation, sidewalks, parking lots, and water related park components. This
program is essential to keeping park facilities and infrastructure in safe usable condition as
well as enhancing the infrastructure to support growing demand in the parks.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Funds were not fully expended in 2018 due to
insufficient funding and time to complete the next lifecycle project. The re-appropriated
funds will be added to 2019 funding to replace an aging bridge.at Rolland Moore Park.
City Clerk’s Office
5) Election Improvements- $20,000
UPurpose for fundsU: We were working with Operations Services on a number of changes in
the fall of 2018 to make improvements related to elections. These included a new ballot box
for City Hall (purchase and install), a camera (purchase and install, as well as running
electricity to the site) to watch activity surrounding the box 24/7, and improvements to the
conference rooms, including Clickshare technology, to be used for webinars, training and
viewing items staff teams and election help is working on. Unfortunately, these items were
not fully completed or billed to 2018. There is no money in our 2019 budget to cover these
charges; we are requesting 2018 funds as intended.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: We had additional election money since there was no
coordinated election with the County for 2018. We intended to have all of this work
completed in 2018 in preparation for our upcoming election in April 2019, but this did not
occur. At this point, a lot of the work has been completed and the rest will be finalized by
the end of February. None of what we are requesting monies for has been billed.
Municipal Court
6) Temporary Judge- $10,000
Page 4
UPurpose for fundsU: Resolution 2018-021/022 authorized Chief Judge Lane to assign
Temporary Judges to hear civil case(s) filed into Municipal Court. Since no additional
funding for personnel costs was appropriated for the Court's budget at that time, an Annual
Adjustment Request in the amount of $5,000 was made in August of 2018 to fund costs
associated with the assignment of Judge Hamilton-Fieldman to hear a civil case that was filed
on April 3, 2018. In 2018, approximately $14,500 in personnel costs were paid relating to
that case.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: The civil case filed in April of 2018 is very complex
with multiple parties and attorneys involved. A total of 49 individual filings have been filed
to date. The case should reach final disposition in 2019, so the Court is requesting the use of
2018 funds for the estimated personnel costs to be paid in 2019.
Communications & Public Involvement
7) Marketing and Public Engagement Consulting Support- $20,000
UPurpose for fundsU: To support broadband marketing implementation and expand public
engagement activities within underserved populations. Reimagining community engagement
and the launch of a municipal fiber optic network are both community and Council priorities.
In 2018, staff supported the development of the Fort Collins Connexion branding. They also
began working with local consultants to engage diverse and underserved parts of the
community. This funding will be used to support marketing efforts as Connexion goes live in
2019. The funding will also expand and formalize a partnership with a local cultural broker
to help the City deepen its relationship and engagement with underrepresented populations.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Expenditures of these funds were delayed in 2018 as
the Connexion branding was being finalized through the end of the year, and marketing
implementation is expected to fully ramp up in 2019. The City made good strides on efforts
to reach underserved populations in 2018. A new strategy was identified later in the year to
utilize a cultural broker partnership. Efforts to identify an appropriate partner and to evaluate
how the partnership would work took longer than anticipated. This funding will be utilized to
continue implementation of this strategy to enhance community engagement and expand our
reach , particularly with underserved populations like Fort Collins' Spanish-speaking
population.
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
8) City Plan - $50,000
UPurpose for fundsU: As an Economic Health enhancement offer, these funds are used to
support the development of updates to three major City policy plans: City Plan (the
community's comprehensive plan), the Transportation Master Plan, and the Transit Master
Plan. City Plan provides high-level direction for the community and decision-makers on
long-range, community-wide topics and fulfills state requirements to have a plan in place to
guide future growth and development in the community and the adjacent Growth
Management Area.
Page 5
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: In developing major policy plans, extensive community
outreach and engagement takes place throughout the update process, which can span multiple
years and require significant funding to facilitate engagement activities and events. City
Council directed staff at Council work sessions in both November and December 2018 to
continue targeted outreach activities with underrepresented populations. In order to achieve
this direction, the reappropriation of funds is needed to continue these efforts in 2019 leading
up to plan adoption.
9) Landmark Rehabilitation Loan- $22,866
UPurpose for fundsU: The zero-interest, landmark rehabilitation loan program for designated
Fort Collins landmarks is the Historic Preservation Division's central incentive program that
supports rehabilitation of our community's important historic resources. The 2018 program
funded $38,451 in loans, with the remainder of the balance budgeted for administrative
program fees associated with recording and loan closings. These loans resulted in $69,401 in
improvements to seven Fort Collins landmarks. Three of the loans were not closed due to
circumstances beyond the control of program staff and property owners and require
reappropriation in order to fulfill the commitments we made to property owners and close out
the 2018 loan recipient award group.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: The remaining budget from 2018 constitutes $17,549 in
landmark rehabilitation loans plus the related loan servicing fees that will be paid to Impact
Development Fund at the time of closing. Three loan applicants met the 2018 application
deadline and received approval to proceed with the work but the loans were not closed in
2018 due to extenuating circumstances (weather-related, personal illness, unexpected
complications related to project scope). Each of these will be finalized in Q1 2019 and the
loans can be closed and funds issued.
Economic Health Office
10) Metro Districts- $8,552
UPurpose for fundsU: The Economic Health Office provides oversight and management of the
City's review of Metro District Service plans. Part of that process includes receiving funds
from applicants to offset City costs incurred during review. The funds included in this
reallocation request represent funds deposited with the City by the Metro Districts at the I-25
and Prospect interchange. The funds have been used to offset the City's review costs.
Additional costs may be accrued in 2019. Any balance of funds must be returned to the
applicant if unused. Therefore, the City will need to either expend these funds on additional
review or refund them to the applicants. All funds are needed for these obligations.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Funds are either expended at the time of review or
refunded after the analysis is complete. Additional work continues related to the interchange
funding, including the financing; therefore, these projects have not been closed out and no
refunds have been issued. It is anticipated that the projects will close and funds will be
expended in 2019.
Social Sustainability
Page 6
11) Affordable Housing Programs - $93,927
UPurpose for fundsU: The Affordable Housing Funds are allocated annually through the
Competitive Process to support critical affordable housing needs in the City of Fort Collins.
All funds were awarded to housing programs or projects to further the goals identified in the
City's Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: The $93,927 represents $900 in unspent program
support costs and $93,027 in funding that have been committed to housing programs, CARE
Housing rehabilitation and the Homebuyer Assistance Program, but not yet
contracted. These are matching funds for federal grants requirements of the CDBG/HOME
program. Under federal guidelines, CARE Housing project cannot be contracted until the
federal requirements have been met. The HBA funding cannot be contracted until individual
homeowners make application to program for specific properties under contract. Housing
projects often span multiple years and are not contracted in the year they receive the initial
allocation.
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND
Natural Areas
12) West Nile Virus- $2,200
UPurpose for fundsU: Offer 85.1 provides operational funds for the City's West Nile Virus
(WNV) mitigation program. This offer funds proactive measures, such as mosquito larval
control, to reduce the frequency and geographic extent of adult mosquito treatment via
pesticide application. Additionally, funds provide for community outreach and education
centered on reducing mosquito breeding habitat and personal protective options to reduce
infection risk.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: The WNV program typically operates with very little
annual underspend. However, in 2018, the City's purchasing department required the
renegotiation of the mosquito pool testing contract with CSU. This renegotiation realized a
savings of $8,406. Unanticipated costs to the program in 2018 included banner installation by
the Utilities Department - approximately $2,200. This amount was charged by the Utilities
department in early 2019.
13) Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP)- $20,466
UPurpose for fundsU: The purpose of these funds is to provide professional, technical, and legal
support for the City’s engagement in the permitting process required of the Northern
Integrated Supply Project (NISP).
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: This offer supported the City's engagement and
response to the wildlife mitigation plan and environmental review for the Northern Integrated
Supply Project (NISP). These funds were instrumental in enabling the City to develop a
Page 7
technical analysis and strategic response on behalf of our water related assets. The permitting
for NISP is not complete and these funds would be used in 2019 on additional technical
support to inform our ongoing engagement.
Parks
14) Parks Lifecycle Funding- $9,546 (plus an additional $50,904 in General Fund totals
$60,450 for request)
Please see description in #3 under General Fund.
Communications & Public Involvement
15) Climate Action Plan Messaging and Engagement- $16,049
UPurpose for fundsU: To continue implementation of the Climate Action Plan messaging
campaigns in 2019. Community engagement has been noted as one of the top two challenges
for achieving the community's climate action goals (financing is the other top challenge). In
2018, staff piloted a marketing campaign (Take Two) and reached over 5,000 Fort Collins
households. This funding will be leveraged for the launch of the 2019 campaigns, which are
designed to engage a wide range of households and businesses in simple, easy actions they
can take that will save them time, money and energy (and help achieve the 2020 climate
action goal).
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Expenditures of these funds were delayed in 2018 to
ensure that a full evaluation of the Take Two pilot could take place. Lessons learned from the
pilot are being incorporated into the proposed campaigns for 2019, and this funding will be
used to continue community engagement and expand our reach, particularly with
underserved populations, e.g., Fort Collins' Spanish-speaking population.
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Streets
16) Street Maintenance Program- $584,000
UPurpose for fundsU: Streets is requesting $584,000 to be re-appropriated from the 2018 Street
Maintenance Program (SMP) budget to cover the costs of the three projects listed below
which were scheduled to be completed in 2018:
• University Acres 1 – Garfield St. between Lemay Ave. and Green St. ($116,000)
• Lakeside Neighborhood ($162,000)
• Hickory St. ($306,000)
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: The projects were postponed because Utilities needs to
complete work prior to the street maintenance work being performed. The utilities work has
Page 8
been, or will be completed in 2019, and the Streets department will be able to complete the
projects in 2019.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Park Planning & Development
17) Community Opportunity Funds to Leverage Private Contributions- $25,000 (plus
an additional $25,000 in General Fund totals $50,000 for request)
Please see description in #1 under General Fund.
EQUIPMENT FUND
Operation Services
18) 2018 Hail Damage Insurance Appropriation - $900,000
UPurpose for fundsU: These funds are intended to fix about 350 vehicles from the June 19,
2018 hailstorm. The 2018 supplemental appropriation to cover this unanticipated expense
was for $1.5M, which was based upon an per vehicle estimate at that time. This
reappropriation request is for 100% of the remaining repair expenses based on the current bid
that was recently completed. The repair contractor estimates three months to complete all the
repairs.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: We were not able to do complete any of the work last
year because of challenges that occurred with the RFP and finalizing the amount of the
settlement. The RFP issues were resolved and we re-issued a second one later in the year.
When the vendor was selected, it was too late to complete all the repairs within the calendar
year.
LIGHT AND POWER FUND
Utility Customer Connection
19) Non-Residential Solar Rebates- $100,000
UPurpose for fundsU: Rebates are offered for approved project applications in support of
midsize non-residential solar projects through up front rebates. Projects of this type are
generally located on large commercial rooftops and are “net metered” to benefit the project
owner through reduction in on site utility bills.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: Utilities approved a group of solar rebate applications
in late 2018 for which requisitions were submitted in order to generate a purchase order for
each project. One of the requisitions was not entered into the system in time to be
incorporated into the normal purchase order carryover review process. Completion of this
Page 9
reappropriation will preserve the 2019 funds for the intended Council purpose of additional
solar projects.
DATA & COMMUNICATIONS FUND
Information Technology
20) Electronic Record Search- $103,000
UPurpose for fundsU: The funds requested are to fund the implementation of an Electronic
Record Search (eDiscovery) tool set and process that will enable organizations across the
City to collaborate effectively and efficiently when Open Records and other searches are
requested. The primary departments that will utilize this functionality are IT, City Attorney,
City Clerk, Fort Collins Police Services, and various other departments within the City
depending on the nature of the request. This project will enable the City to leverage the
Office 365 (O365) workloads and applications the City is already paying for as a part of our
tenant and will integrate other technology as identified and deemed necessary for an
automated, thorough, and compliant process.
UReason funds not expensed in 2018U: The original idea was to bring in a completely new tool
to meet identified electronic search functionality goals and run concurrently with the O365
project. As IT completed the O365 Exchange and Office deployment, IT became aware of
the eDiscovery features in O365 and decided to evaluate that tool set as the feature set of
O365 as it was not well known or understood at the time. After more in-depth evaluation and
analysis, the eDiscovery in O365 appeared to be a good match. However, IT was unable to
engage professional services in time to begin the project before year-end due to bandwidth
capacity of implementing other large scale, high-priority projects in 2018.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases 2019 appropriations by $2,110,491. A total of $350,230 is requested
for reappropriation in the General Fund, $48,261 from the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund and
$1,712,000 is requested from various other City funds. Reappropriation requests represent
amounts budgeted in 2018 that could not be encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are
from 2018 prior year reserves.
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint presentation
2019 Reappropriation Ordinance
Mike Beckstead, CFO2-25-19
2019 Reappropriation Summary
2
What qualifies for Reappropriation?
•Funds that were originally appropriated in 2018 for a specific
purpose but were not fully expensed or encumbered by the
end of the fiscal year
•Appropriate the funds from 2018 reserves into the 2019
budget for the same specific uses that were originally
proposed and approved for 2018
•The executive team reviewed the reappropriation requests
and concluded that all 2019 reappropriation items submitted
were still high priorities to be completed
2019 Reappropriation Summary
3
Amount by Fund being requested for Reappropriation:
General Fund $350,230
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 48,261
Transportation Fund 584,000
Capital Projects Fund 25,000
Equipment Fund 900,000
Data and Communications Fund 103,000
Light and Power Fund 100,000
Total $2,110,491
Reappropriation by Fund
GENERAL FUND:
4
#Department Request Name Amount
1 Natural Areas Instream Flows 28,491
2 Park Planning & Development Community Opportunity Funds to Leverage Private Contributions 25,000
3 Parks Medians Lifecycle Funding 20,490
4 Parks Parks Lifecycle Funding 50,904
5 City Clerk's Office Election Improvements 20,000
6 Municipal Court Municipal Court: Temporary Judge 10,000
7 Comm. & Public Involvement Marketing and Public Engagement Consulting Support 20,000
8 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs City Plan 50,000
9 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 22,866
10 Economic Health Office Metro Districts 8,552
11 Social Sustainability Affordable Housing Programs (AHF) 93,927
GENERAL FUND TOTAL $350,230
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND:
5
Reappropriation by Fund
#Department Request Name Amount
12 Natural Areas West Nile Virus $2,200
13 Natural Areas Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP)20,466
14 Parks Parks Lifecycle Funding 9,546
15 Comm. & Public Involvement Climate Action Plan Messaging and Engagement 16,049
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT TOTAL $48,261
OTHER FUNDS:
6
Reappropriation by Fund
#Department Request Name Amount
16 Streets Street Maintenance Program $584,000
17 Park Planning & Development Community Opportunity Funds to Leverage Private Contributions 25,000
18 Operation Services 2018 Hail Damage Insurance Appropriation 900,000
19 Utilities Customer Connections Non-Residential Solar Rebates 100,000
20 Information Technology Electronic Record Search 103,000
OTHER FUNDS TOTAL $1,712,000
GRAND TOTAL $2,110,491
7
Historic Reappropriation Ordinances
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total All Funds General Fund
2019 Reappropriation Summary
8
Guidance Requested:
1)CFC feedback on the Reappropriation requests being presented
2)CFC direction on putting Reappropriation on the Consent Agenda
of the March 5th City Council meeting
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks and Jensen Morgan
Date: January 30, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Metro District by Hartford Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The developer of the proposed Mulberry Metro District has submitted a Metro District Service
Plan to support a proposed development of approximately 226 acres located north of Mulberry
Street along both sides of Greenfields Drive. The development is anticipated to have 1,600
residences, including single-family detached, single-family attached, and
multi-family living options, of which a minimum of ten percent (10%) will be designated and
sold as affordable. The estimated population at build-out is 4,000. The Preliminary Development
Plan expects a neighborhood town center and grocery store as well as 20-30 acres of retail,
commercial, and office uses.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council
evaluation of Harford Development’s proposed Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Hartford Development is proposing a mixed-use community as a gateway to the Mulberry
Corridor and Fort Collins just off of I-25. The development is designed to align with the East
Mulberry Corridor Plan and a Metro District is proposed to address road and water infrastructure
challenges with the site. The project is committed to affordable housing, on-site solar and
providing additional commercial space for businesses. The overall community design is meant to
employ Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) principles in line with New Urbanist
concepts.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Metro District will support 226 acres of planned development that will become the
gateway to the Mulberry Corridor off of I-25. The project anticipates constructing:
Approximately 1,600 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family);
Minimum of 10% affordable at 80% AMI or less (160 units)
Up to 160,000 SF of retail and commercial uses, including a neighborhood-scaled
grocery store up to 50,000 SF
Up to 80,000 SF of office uses integrated into the market
Significant open space, including a range of features from amenitized parks to
preservation of high-value natural areas; and
An extensive trail corridor and pedestrian network, providing both internal community
connectivity and walkability, as well as links to the surrounding Fort Collins community.
The project is generally located north of Mulberry Street along both sides of Greenfields Drive.
METRO DISTRICT
Hartford Development has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Mulberry Metropolitan
District Nos. 1-6 (the “Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical
public infrastructure and other site costs mitigating a portion of the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of six Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver
the proposed Mulberry development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the
next nine plus years and support an estimated population of 4,000. A few highlights about the
proposed Service Plan, include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $66 million in 2029 at full 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 – Up to 50 mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but
not limited to: (a) a non-potable irrigation system, and (b) road infrastructure. Once a
District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, such District’s Operating Mill Levy cannot exceed ten
(10) mills at any point.
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be approximately $65 million to cover a
portion of the estimated $105 million in public improvement costs. If Inclusion Area is
added to Districts’ boundaries the Maximum Debt Authorization would become $75
million.
Regional Mill Levy – The regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate
Mill Levy Maximum
Public Improvements
The Service Plan anticipates using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the
maximum amount of $65 million to fund all or a portion of the following $105 million in public
improvements (details available in Exhibit F of the Service Plan):
Earthwork – Approximately $4.2 million in earthwork and site preparation costs
associated with the proposed project.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Approximately $7.2 million in costs associated with
constructing the sanitary sewer infrastructure both on- and off-site for the project
Water Improvements – Approximately $8.2 million in costs to construct potable water
infrastructure both on- and off-site supporting the project
Non-potable Water – Approximately $4.6 million to construct a non-potable irrigation
system to serve the entire development – this infrastructure will reduce the project’s need
to acquire additional water rights, reduce the demand on potable water treatment facilities
and save energy normally consumed in potable water treatment processes.
Storm Sewer Improvements – Approximately $6.1 million in costs to construct the
main storm sewer system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading
are included in the Earthwork amount above)
Streets, Trails, and Sidewalks – Approximately $25.3 million in costs to construct
concrete infrastructure for roads, trails and sidewalks on the project
Erosion – Approximately $1.2 million in costs to ensure erosion control and maintenance
on the project
Landscaping – Approximately $4.4 million in costs for Cooper Slough improvement,
neighborhood park development, development of a pollinator corridor, and other
landscaping
Misc. / Amenity – Approximately $39.0 million in miscellaneous costs associated with
the project. This includes contingency funds (14% of total), commercial promenade,
neighborhood pool
The subtotal for basic costs associated with public improvements through the Metro Districts is
approximately $74.0 million; non-basic costs are approximately $30.7 million which brings the
project to an approximate total of $105 million.
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. The development plans to invest $500,000 in
improvements to the Cooper Slough through the Metro Districts.
Public Benefits
As required by the proposed new policy, the Service Plan will deliver several extraordinary
development outcomes that support several public benefits. A general list of benefits and, where
available, their estimated value are described in the table below (details in Exhibit I of the
Service Plan). The table has been supplied by the applicant to provide an estimate of the relative
value of the proposed extraordinary benefits. Those numbers have been reviewed by staff and the
outside consultant. Further refinement has been requested to address concerns raised by the
outside consultant.
Affordable Housing - The financing and reimbursement options created by the
Metropolitan Districts will enable the Mulberry project to deliver a minimum of 160 units
or 10% of the total project at affordable rates (80% AMI or lower). These units will be
delivered under the following guidelines:
o For Sale: A minimum of 40 units (2.5%) will be for sale
o For Rent: Approximately 120 units (7.5%) are anticipated to be for rent
o Integrated / Dispersed Site: Approximately 40 units will be built as dispersed site,
integrating market rate and affordable housing. It is anticipated that affordable
units will be same units as market-rate and integrated along a block or product
type
o Enforceability: Prior to or concurrent with Development Agreement, Mulberry
will create legally enforceable guarantees for affordable housing commitments.
Potential options include, contract with City for Land Bank, deed restriction,
reservation of acreage
Community Gateway - Per the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, this property is uniquely
positioned to provide a gateway to Fort Collins from I-25. Two small parcels have been
created within the boundaries of the proposed Mulberry community and provides an ideal
site for a significantly scaled, iconic City monument. This would reinforce the role of this
property being a significant part of a gateway to the City of Fort Collins from I-25.
Non-Potable Water System - Mulberry will provide for the construction and
maintenance of a non-potable water system for community-wide landscaping and
landscaping on individual lots. The proposed non-potable water system for Mulberry will
lead to a significant reduction in potable water demand when compared to similar
communities, while simultaneously reducing the monthly costs of homeownership.
Environmental Sustainability - Throughout the community, environmentally friendly
design will promote Fort Collins sustainability goals. Xeric landscaping and use of non-
potable irrigation will conserve water, while landscape architecture designed to support
the flight distances and migration patterns of applicable pollinators will increase the
biodiversity of the area. A commitment to 800 kW of solar capacity generated within and
distributed throughout the Districts will further promote resource conservation and
renewable energy use.
The developer estimates a public benefit value of approximately $74 million compared to a
metro district debt cap of $65 million.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues to the currently adopted policy is
provided below in Table 1.
Table 1
Metro District Policy Comparison
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Mulberry complies with the City’s existing policy.
POLICY EVALUATION & PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
The recently updated 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 Mulberry Project delivers several proposed policy outcomes (see
Attachment 3).
Triple Bottom Line – Scan
An interdisciplinary staff team prepared a Triple Bottom Line Scan of the proposed Service Plan
(see Attachment 4). The net analysis is generally neutral to slightly positive. The highlights are
provided below:
Economic – The proposed affordable housing is expected to have a positive impact on
retaining and attracting talent to strengthen our local labor force for employers. The
additional office and retail space is expected to have positive effects in the Fort Collins
market.
Project Current Policy
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Ongoing for O&M 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
Residential and
Commercial N/A
Environmental – Some benefit is expected from the proposed 800 kW of solar, but
overall the proposed environmental public benefits were interpreted as minor by staff
under the current proposal. Additional clarity is needed to assess any improved benefit.
Social – This area is expected to have the most positive impact due to the commitments
to affordable housing. The proposal could be strengthened with a greater focus on
affordable housing (e.g. 15% affordable), clearer expectations around deed restriction
over time and pricing.
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, the City reviewed the Financial Plan in partnership with
Economic & Planning Systems (See Attachment 6). The review concluded the following:
• The proposed mill levies are in line with the City’s policy.
• The market values used in the public revenue estimates are reasonable.
• EPS expressed concern about residential absorption of Mulberry in the context of other
new North College developments: Waterfield, Water’s Edge, and Montava.
• EPS believed the retail program is oversized for the residential development alone. To
succeed the retail will have to be more regionally-serving and connected to other
developments.
• Office absorption rates are reasonable, but some concern was expressed due to the office
market in North Fort Collins being currently immature.
• EPS found it difficult to assess if there would be “extraordinary benefits” with the
following: added utility services, non-potable irrigation system, and affordable housing.
• Additional detail is required to further asses; more detailed information has been
requested from the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Public Benefit Matrix
4. Triple Bottom Line Scan One pager
5. Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-4
6. Economic & Planning Systems Financial Assessment
1
Mulberry Metro District Request Preview
Josh Birks
2-25-19
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Mulberry Metro District Service
Plan?
2
Project Description
10+ Year Multi Phase
Master Planned
Project
1,600 Residential
Units
5% affordable
3
Policy Comparison –Key Provisions
4
Project Current Policy
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Ongoing for O&M 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
Residential and
Commercial N/A
Public Improvements
Improvement Description Estimated Cost
Earthwork Primarily grading $4.2 Million
Concrete Roads $6.9 Million
Asphalt Roads $18.4 Million
Erosion Erosion management $1.2 Million
Water Main infrastructure $8.2 Million
Sanitary Sewer Main infrastructure $7.2 Million
Non-potable Irrigation Community-wide system $4.6 Million
Storm Sewer Main infrastructure $6.1 Million
Landscaping Park, pollinator corridor, Cooper Slough, Lake
Canal
$4.4 Million
Misc. / Amenity Pool, gateway monumentation, contingency
(20% of construction)
$39.0 Million
Total $104.7 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
7
Triple Bottom Line Scan (TBL-S) Results
Key TBL-S Results
•The proposed 10% affordable housing (160 units)
would have positive impacts for both economic and
social sustainability
•The currently proposed environmental benefits are not
as strong as they could be
Mitigation Strategies
•Could benefit from strengthening a particular focus
area (e.g. focusing on 15% affordable housing)
•OR The Service Plan could benefit from committing
to more specific environmental public benefits (e.g.
DOE Net Zero Ready homes, LEED standards, EV
charging infrastructure that goes beyond code, etc.)
Affordable Housing
•Economic & Planning Systems estimates the metro district would
cost each residence $96 extra per month
•10% of housing will be affordable (160 units at 80% AMI or lower)
•For Sale: minimum of 40 units
•For Rent: Approx. 120 units
•Integrated/Dispersed: Approx. 40 units will be built as
‘dispersed site’ units.
8
Questions for the Committee
What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Mulberry Metro District Service
Plan?
9
Mulberry Metro District Vicinity Map
GHG Reduction 800 kW Solar Power Increase
Density
Alley load
homes; Added
utility
services/Raw
water
dedication
Affordable
Housing
10% of homes
will be 80%
AMI or below
(160 units) with
20-year deed
restriction;
Water savings
from non-
potable
irrigation
Water/Energy
Conservation
Non-potable
irrigation system
Walkability/
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Enhanced
crossings
Workforce
Housing
Multimodal
Transportation
Availability of
Transit
Infill/
Redevelopment
Mulberry
frontage
improvements;
Monument /
gateway
signage;
Mulberry
intersection /
median
improvements
Enhance
Resiliency
Pollinator corridors;
Cooper Slough
improvements; Lake
Canal improvements
Public Space
Neighborhood
parks;
Swimming
pool;
Commercial
center
promenade
Increase
Renewable
Capacity
See GHG reduction Mixed-Use
Project is
designed as
mixed-use
Off-Site
Vine &
Timberline
contributions
; Greenfields
RAB
Economic Health
Catalyze corridor
redevelopment;
New
employment /
Sales tax
generation
Environmental Sustainability Critical Public Infrastructure Smart Growth Management Strategic Priorities
On-Site Rail
Crossing
Metro District Proposal: Hartford Homes
Service Plan proposal to create a metro district off of I-25 just north of Mulberry Street along both sides
of Greenfields Drive. The developer proposes that metro district tax benefits make it easier for the
Hartford Homes to create increased public benefits in the areas of infrastructure, smart growth,
affordable housing, attainable housing, and building with environmental sustainability practices. This
scan assumes that development would happen regardless of the Metro District and analyzes the impact
of a metro district compared to a business-as-usual development scenario.
Positive
• The proposed 800 KW of solar PV
would reduce GHG emissions,
though the impact on the City’s
CAP would be minor
• The non-potable irrigation system
could reduce water consumption
depending on resident responses
and behavior change
• Pollinator corridor could improve
resilience of ecosystem services by
providing habitat and resources for
pollinators.
Negative
• None Identified
Positive
• The 160 affordable housing units
could support retention and
attraction of Fort Collins workforce
• Affordable housing units could
minorly help to reduce cost of living
pressures
• The development proposes a sign
and landscaping area that will
welcome those coming into Fort
Collins via I-25, this could benefit
our community brand.
Negative
• None Identified
Positive
• The proposed 160 affordable
housing units directly increase the
housing stock of affordable and
attainable housing.
• Affordable housing units could
benefit low-income community
members feeling a better sense of
belonging in Fort Collins
• Could benefit the economic
conditions of low-income community
members
• Affordable housing indirectly benefits
the support of self-sufficiency
Negative
• None Identified
Tradeoffs
• While there are obvious benefits of affordable housing to economic and social sustainability, the environmental benefits
proposed are not as strong as they could be.
Mitigations
• The Service Plan could benefit from either strengthening a particular focus area (e.g. focusing on 15% affordable
housing) and letting go of the focus on other areas.
• OR The Service Plan could benefit from committing to more specific environmental public benefits (e.g. DOE Net Zero
Ready homes, LEED standards, EV charging infrastructure that goes beyond code, etc.)
Key Alignment: 3.3 Enhance business engagement to address existing and emerging business needs
Metro District Proposal: Hartford Homes
• Impacts within environmental and economic areas are neutral to positive and largely
indirect. This is because Hartford Homes’s proposal demonstrates some benefits to
these areas. Their proposal does beyond basic in a handful of areas.
• The social impacts were strongest; they were more direct and positive because of the
promise of 10% affordable housing.
1
CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
FOR
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-6
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared by:
Spencer Fane LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
Denver, Colorado 80203
Submitted On: January 8, 2019
Approved on:
2
DN 3423281.1
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. .................................................... 7
D. City Approvals. ........................................................................................................................... 7
II. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 7
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION .............................................................................................. 11
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS &
ASSESSED VALUATION ....................................................................................................................... 11
A. Project and Planned Development. ............................................................................................. 11
B. Public Benefits. .............................................................................................................................. 12
C. Assessed Valuation. ....................................................................................................................... 13
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ..................................................................... 13
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................................... 13
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS ....................................................................... 14
A. General Grant of Powers. ............................................................................................................. 14
B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. ....................... 14
1. Eminent Domain Restriction ....................................................................................................... 14
2. Fee Limitation ............................................................................................................................. 14
3. Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 15
4. Fire Protection Restriction .......................................................................................................... 15
5. Public Safety Services Restriction .............................................................................................. 15
6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ....................................................................... 15
7. Golf Course Construction Restriction ......................................................................................... 15
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction ............................................................................. 16
9. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities .................................................................. 16
10. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation ............................................................................... 16
11. Sub-district Restriction ........................................................................................................... 16
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation ............................................................................................ 16
3
DN 3423281.1
13. Special Assessments ............................................................................................................... 17
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS .................................................. 17
A. Development Standards. ............................................................................................................... 17
B. Contracting. ................................................................................................................................... 18
C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. ............................................................................................. 18
D. Equal Employment and Discrimination...................................................................................... 18
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT ................................................................................... 18
A. Financial Plan. ............................................................................................................................... 19
B. Mill Levies. ..................................................................................................................................... 19
1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ................................................................................................. 19
2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies ............................................................. 19
3. Operating Mill Levy ................................................................................................................... 19
4. Gallagher Adjustments ................................................................................................................ 19
5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ...................................................................................................... 20
6. Refunding Debt ........................................................................................................................... 20
7. Maximum Debt Authorization .................................................................................................... 20
C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. .................................................... 21
D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. ........................................................... 21
E. Disclosure to Purchasers. ............................................................................................................. 21
F. External Financial Advisor. ......................................................................................................... 21
G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. ................................................................................................ 22
H. Security for Debt. ...................................................................................................................... 22
I. TABOR Compliance. .................................................................................................................... 22
J. Districts’ Operating Costs. ........................................................................................................... 22
X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................... 23
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. ..................................................................................................... 23
B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. .................................................................................................... 23
C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements......................................................................... 23
D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. ........................................................ 23
E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. ............................................................................ 23
F. Regional Mill Levy Term. ............................................................................................................ 24
G. Completion of Regional Improvements. ................................................................................. 24
4
DN 3423281.1
H. City Authority to Require Imposition. .................................................................................... 24
I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. ............................................................ 24
J. Gallagher Adjustment. ................................................................................................................. 24
XI. CITY FEES .................................................................................................................................... 24
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 24
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS ................................................................ 25
A. General. .......................................................................................................................................... 25
B. Board Meetings. ............................................................................................................................ 25
C. Report Requirements. ................................................................................................................... 25
1. Narrative ..................................................................................................................................... 25
2. Financial Statements ................................................................................................................... 25
3. Capital Expenditures ................................................................................................................... 25
4. Financial Obligations .................................................................................................................. 25
5. Board Contact Information ......................................................................................................... 25
6. Other Information ....................................................................................................................... 26
D. Reporting of Significant Events. .................................................................................................. 26
E. Failure to Submit. ......................................................................................................................... 26
XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS ......................................................................................... 26
XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 27
XVI. DISSOLUTION ......................................................................................................................... 27
XVII. SANCTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 27
XVIII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 28
XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ............................................................................................ 28
5
DN 3423281.1
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 A-6 Legal Description of District No. 6 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 B-6 District No. 6 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area
EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT E Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT F Public Improvement Cost Estimates
EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Maps
EXHIBIT H Financial Plan
EXHIBIT I Public Benefits
EXHIBIT J Disclosure Notice
6
DN 3423281.1
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 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 also intended under this Service Plan that no District shall be authorized to issue
any Debt, impose a Debt Mill Levy, or impose any Fees for payment on Debt unless and until
the delivery of the applicable Public Benefits described in Section IV.B of this Service Plan
has been secured in accordance with Section IV.B of this Service Plan.
It is 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 those privately-owned properties to be
developed in the Districts that benefit from the Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of
the associated costs.
The Districts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services
except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
It is the intent of the Districts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred
or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt,
except that if the Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or
maintenance functions, the Districts shall continue in existence for the sole purpose of providing
such functions and shall retain only the powers necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees
authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions.
It is intended that the Districts shall comply with the provisions of this Service Plan
and that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in
Section XVII of this Service Plan.
B. Need for the Districts.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the
immediate vicinity of the Districts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the
7
DN 3423281.1
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
the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts. Except as
specifically provided in this Service Plan, all Debt is expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees
imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for
residential properties. A tax mill levy may not exceed the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees
imposed for the payment of Debt shall be due no later than upon the issuance of a building permit
unless a majority of the Board which imposes such a Fee is composed of End Users as provided
in Section VII.B.2. 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.
D. City Approvals.
Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City” or “City Council” approval or consent
shall require the City Council’s prior written approval or consent exercised in its sole discretion.
Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City Manager” approval or consent shall require the
City Manager’s prior written approval or consent exercised in the City Manager’s sole discretion.
II. DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized
format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding 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, at rate not to exceed the
limitation set in Section IX.B.1.
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 of Directors of any of the Districts, or
the Boards of Directors of all of the Districts, in the aggregate.
8
DN 3423281.1
Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations
for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax
mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include contracts
through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality.
City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
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, at a rate not to
exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B.
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 the 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 the Board.
District: means Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 1, Mulberry Metropolitan District No.
2, Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 3, Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 4, Mulberry
Metropolitan District No. 5, or Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 6, 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.
9
DN 3423281.1
District No. 6 Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit
“A-6” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District No. 6
Boundary Map.
District No. 1 Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B-1” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 2 Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B-2” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 3 Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B-3” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 4 Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B-4” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 5 Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B-5” and incorporated by reference.
District No. 6 Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B-6” and incorporated by reference.
Districts: means Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 1, Mulberry Metropolitan District No.
2, Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 3, Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 4, Mulberry
Metropolitan District No. 5, and Mulberry Metropolitan District No. 6, 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 or an underwriter of the Districts’ Debt.
Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges the Districts are authorized to
impose and collect under this Service Plan.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which
was prepared by D.A. Davidson and Co. in accordance with the requirements of this
Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (b) how
the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from
property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District
Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course.
10
DN 3423281.1
Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be
added to the Districts’ Boundaries after the Districts’ organization, which property is
legally described in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and
depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the 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 a
District’s Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for
residential use, which shall include residential properties in mixed-use developments. This
maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31 of the year this Service
Plan is approved by City Council
Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in
this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public
Improvements, and imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties
in the Service Area, commonly referred to as the Mulberry Development, under an
Approved Development Plan.
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned
Development.
Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the Districts are
authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve
the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the Districts, except as specifically prohibited or
limited in this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the
improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit “F” 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 “I” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating
and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and
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, and District No. 6 Boundaries, collectively, and the property in the Inclusion
Area Boundaries when it is added, in whole or part, to the Districts’ Boundaries, all as may
be amended from time to time as further set forth in the Service Plan and the Special
District Act.
11
DN 3423281.1
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, including
the real and personal property within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the
District Boundaries that will be subject to the ad valorem property 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.
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION
The area of the Service Area includes approximately 226 acres and the total area proposed
to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately 77 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; a legal description and map of the District No. 5 Boundaries are attached hereto as
Exhibit A-5 and Exhibit B-5, respectively; and a legal description and map of the District No. 6
Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A-6 and Exhibit B-6, respectively. A legal description
and map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D,
respectively. It is anticipated that the 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 E.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION
A. Project and Planned Development.
The Mulberry Development is a proposed 226-acre, mixed use community located north
of Mulberry Street along both sides of Greenfields Drive, otherwise known as the “Mulberry
Corridor.” The Mulberry Corridor is a primary gateway into the City of Fort Collins, and in its
current state, does not represent the City of Fort Collins’ development standards. The Developer
12
DN 3423281.1
would like to initiate redevelopment of Mulberry Corridor to meet the City’s high development
standards and catalyze redevelopment in the surrounding areas by incorporating several critical
City objectives and plans into the Planned Development. The Planned Development incorporates
the goals of the following plans: the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, the City’s Transportation Master
Plan, the City’s Master Street Plan, the Nature in the City Strategic Plan, the City Structure Plan,
the Natural Areas Master Plan, and the Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan.
The current Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Development includes
approximately 1,600 residences, including single-family detached, single-family attached, and
multi-family living options, of which a minimum of ten percent (10%) will be designated and sold
as affordable. In addition, the Developer intends to implement design standards, construction
strategies, and innovative land planning to lower the overall cost of housing in the community.
The estimated population at build-out is 4,000.
In addition, the current Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Development
provides for a neighborhood town center with a central pedestrian-oriented market street acting as
the continuation of the central north-south greenway running through the community, which shall
include: (i) approximately 20-30 acres of retail, commercial, and office uses; (ii) approximately
230,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses, including a neighborhood-scaled grocery store;
and (iii) approximately 86,000 square feet of office uses integrated into the market street. The
Planned Development also provides for significant open space, including amenitized parks and
natural areas, and an extensive trail corridor and pedestrian network which will provide internal
community connectivity and walkability as well as links to the surrounding Fort Collins
community.
Construction of the Mulberry Development is planned to be completed by year 2028. In
accordance with the Financial Plan, the estimated assessed valuation of the Planned Development
in 2024 is estimated to be $14,955,749 for residential and $0.00 for commercial, and in 2029 it is
estimated to be $41,584,214 for residential and $23,688,792 for commercial.
Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the
development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the Districts. Any such
approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan.
B. Public Benefits.
In addition to the Public Improvements as described in Exhibit F, the Districts will deliver
several public benefits to the community in accordance with the City’s Metro District Service Plan
Policy. The public benefits include, but are not limited to, developing critical on-site and off-site
public infrastructure, employing high quality and Smart Growth practices, creating affordable
housing units, creating attainable housing units to support the workforce, and incorporating
Environmental Sustainability through energy conservation, water conservation, and enhanced
community resiliency, all of which are specifically described in Exhibit I attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the “Public Benefits”).
Therefore, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, no
District shall be authorized to issue any Debt or to impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees for
payment of Debt on any Taxable Property unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits
13
DN 3423281.1
specifically related to the phase of the Planned Development or portion of the Project to be
financed with such Debt, Debt Mill Levy, or Fees are secured in a manner approved by the City
Council. To satisfy this precondition to the issuance of Debt and to the imposition of the Debt Mill
Levy and Fees, delivery of the Public Benefits for each phase of the Project and the Planned
Development must be secured by one of the following methods, as applicable:
1. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts,
each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City either
(i) agreeing to provide those Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-fiscal
year obligation of the District under TABOR, or by (ii) securing performance of that
obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City,
and the City Council must approve by resolution any such intergovernmental
agreement;
2. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the
Planned Development, each such Developer must either (i) enter into a development
agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable Approved Development
Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public
Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of
occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for that
phase of the Planned Development, or (ii) secure such obligations with a surety bond,
letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City, and the City Council must
approve by resolution all such development agreements;
3. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided in part by one or more of the
Districts in the Project and in part by one or more of the Developers in the Planned
Development or Project, an agreement between the City, the affected District(s), and
the Developer(s) that secures such Public Benefits as legally binding obligations using
the methods described in subsections 1 and 2 above, and the City Council must approve
by resolution all such agreements.
C. Assessed Valuation.
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately $73,871 and, at build
out, is expected to be $65,273,006. These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably
discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
Other than the real property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the Districts shall not add
any real property to the Service Area without the City’s approval and in compliance with the
Special District Act. Once a District has issued Debt, it shall not exclude real property from the
District’s boundaries without the prior written consent of the City Council.
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
14
DN 3423281.1
The Districts’ Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible elector”
of the Districts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End
Users who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the Districts’ Boards as
development of the Service Area progresses. The Districts shall not enter into any agreement by
which the End Users’ electoral control of the Boards is removed or diminished.
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS
A. General Grant of Powers.
The Districts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the
Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the
Service Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other
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 be exercised by the
Districts if the City Council first approves the exercise of such powers or authority by the
Districts. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment.
B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations.
The Districts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public Improvements
and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the Special District
Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as hereafter provided.
Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall constitute a material
modification under this 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 their 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 voluntarily acquiesced to by the Districts
and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the Districts’ sovereign powers
and shall not negatively affect the Districts’ status as political subdivisions 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
15
DN 3423281.1
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 a 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 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, own, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless
such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement
with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct,
install, relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related
improvements installed as part of the Project’s water system shall not be limited by this
subsection.
5. Public Safety Services Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However,
the 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
16
DN 3423281.1
Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate
the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the Districts shall
not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop,
finance, own, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the City.
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities
and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction
project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written
approval from the City Manager.
9. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Acknowledging that the City and other existing special districts operating within the
City currently own and operate treatment facilities for potable water and wastewater
that are available to provide services to the Service Area, the Districts shall not plan,
design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or
maintain such facilities without obtaining the City Council’s prior written approval.
10. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation
The Districts shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption otherwise available to
the Districts under the City Code.
11. Sub-district Restriction
The Districts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act
without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the Districts shall obtain the
certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows:
We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of
the District’s Service Plan.
We [I] certify that (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.
17
DN 3423281.1
13. Special Assessments
The Districts shall not impose special assessments without the prior
written approval of the City Council.
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit F 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 F,
excluding any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to serve the Planned
Development, are approximately $104,712,037 in 2019 dollars and total approximately [Dollar
Amount] in the anticipated year of construction dollars. The cost estimates are based upon
preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements set forth
in Exhibit F 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 G. Changes in the Public Improvements or cost, 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.
Further, any agreement approved and entered into pursuant to Section IV.B of this Service Plan
for the provision of a Public Improvement that is also a Public Benefit shall supersede both this
Service Plan and the Approved Development Plan.
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 Public Improvements shall be listed using an ownership and maintenance matrix in
Exhibit F, either individually or categorically, to identify the ownership and maintenance
responsibilities of the Public Improvements.
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain
operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following 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
18
DN 3423281.1
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 in
the City Manager’s discretion when the constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt
issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public Improvements, unless such
release is prohibited by or in conflict with any City Code provision or State law. 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 requirements and limitations.
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
required in the City Code.
D. Equal Employment and Discrimination.
In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the Districts shall
not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging,
promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing
provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the Districts to accomplish the purposes of
this Service Plan.
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the Districts
shall not be authorized to impose the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy or any other taxes
or Fees for any purpose unless and until (a) the Districts and/or the Developer have obtained an
19
DN 3423281.1
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.
A. Financial Plan.
The Districts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit H and incorporated by reference, reflects
the Districts’ anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of
the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the
Districts derived from the Districts’ mill levies, Fees imposed by the Districts, specific ownership
taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan 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 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 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.
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 cannot exceed ten (10) mills at any point.
4. Gallagher Adjustments
20
DN 3423281.1
In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable
Property changes after approval of this Service Plan, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill
Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum,
amounts herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such
increases or decreases shall be determined by the Districts’ Boards in good faith so that
to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted,
are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change.
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.
7. Maximum Debt Authorization
The Districts anticipate approximately $74,037,174 in project costs in 2019 dollars as
set forth in Exhibit F and anticipate issuing approximately $65,000,000 in Debt to pay
such costs as set forth in Exhibit H, which Debt issuance amount shall be the amount
of the Maximum Debt Authorization, provided, however, if the Inclusion Area is added
to the Districts’ boundaries, the Maximum Debt Authorization shall be $75,000,000.
The request for the additional debt authorization will allow for contingencies and
financing variations based upon changes to construction costs, development build out
and absorption of the future inclusion area as well as additional debt capacity to provide
for Public Improvements needed these contingencies and for the future inclusion area
which development has not currently been included in the financial and capital
projections. The Districts collectively 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 F 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 F and any Approved Development
Plan.
21
DN 3423281.1
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.
In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings units
in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other taxing
governmental entities, the property taxes imposed under the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill
Levy and possibly the Regional Mill Levy, the Districts shall not be authorized to issue any Debt
under this Service Plan until there is included in the Developer’s Approved Development Plan
provisions that require the following:
1. That the Developer, and its successors and assigns, shall prepare and submit to the
City Manager for his approval a disclosure notice in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit J (the “Disclosure Notice”);
2. That when the Disclosure Notice is approved by the City Manager, the Developer
shall record the Disclosure Notice in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders
Office; and
3. That the approved Disclosure Notice shall be provided by the Developer, and by its
successors and assigns, to each potential End User purchaser of a residential lot or
dwelling unit in the Service Area before that purchaser enters into a written
agreement for the purchase and sale of that residential lot or dwelling unit.
F. External Financial Advisor.
An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the Districts to provide a written
opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the issuing District once the total
amount of Debt issued by such District 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
22
DN 3423281.1
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.
Any Debt of the Districts shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
“By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and
consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the
principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution
of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the
Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt
of the City of Fort Collins”
Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and
interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the
offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property
within the Service Area.
H. Security for Debt.
The Districts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the
indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed
as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the Districts’ obligations; nor shall anything in the
Service Plan be construed 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 SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000), 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 ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000).
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy, subject to the limitations set
forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as from other revenues legally available to the Districts.
23
DN 3423281.1
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 under the following terms:
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five
(5) mills as part of the Districts’ initial TABOR election. The Districts shall also seek from the
electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the City obligating the Districts to pay as a multiple-fiscal year obligation the
proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining such voter-approval of this
intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the Districts issuing any Debt under this
Service Plan.
B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition.
The Districts shall each 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 Mill Levy, to the extent possible.
D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.
If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public
improvements that the Districts would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re-
design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law.
E. Expenditure of Regional 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,
24
DN 3423281.1
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 a District to initiate the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy
shall expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which said District first imposes
a Debt Mill Levy.
I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.
The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum.
J. Gallagher Adjustment.
In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of
approval of this Service Plan, 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.
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).
25
DN 3423281.1
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS
A. General.
Each of 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 Orders and Decrees
creating the Districts have been issued. These documents may be made available to the public on
the City’s website.
B. Board Meetings.
Each of the District’s board of directors shall hold at least one public board meeting in
three of the four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after the
Districts’ creation. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in accordance with the
requirements of the Special District Act and other applicable State Law. This requirement shall
not apply when a majority of the board of directors are End Users.
C. Report Requirements.
Unless waived in writing by the City Manager, each of the Districts’ annual report must
include the following in the Annual Report:
1. Narrative
A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service
Plan for the report year.
2. Financial Statements
Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the
Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for
the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as
of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and
expenditures) for the report year.
3. Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements
in the report year.
4. Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the
amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued
in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the
Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill
levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5. Board Contact Information
26
DN 3423281.1
The names and contact information of the current board members, any District
manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the report. The District’s
current office address, phone number, email address and any website address shall
also be listed in the report.
6. Other Information
Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Manager.
D. Reporting of Significant Events.
The annual report of each District shall include information as to any of the following that
occurred during the report year:
1. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District’s Boundaries as of
December 31 of the report year.
2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered
into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year.
3. Copies of the District’s rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to
the District’s rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year.
4. A summary of any litigation which involves the District’s Public Improvements
as of December 31 of the report year.
5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report
year.
6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond
a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
7. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in
accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety
(90) day period.
E. Failure to Submit.
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District’s Board at its last known address.
The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of
such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of 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
27
DN 3423281.1
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:
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; and
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, said District shall file a petition in district court for
dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the
District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other
financial obligations as required pursuant to State law.
XVII. SANCTIONS
28
DN 3423281.1
Should any of the Districts undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council approval
or consent or City Manager approval or consent 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 District’s
development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services;
3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the District is in default; or
4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking injunctive relief against the District, 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 are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service
Area; and
4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Districts agree to incorporate the City Council’s resolution approving this Service
Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented
to the District Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado.
29
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT A-1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 1 BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM DISTRICT NO. 1
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9;
THENCE NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 87.10 FEET ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE GREAT WESTERN
RAILROAD, THE START OF A NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT AND THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE ON SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES;
1) THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 692.09 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°41'33", A DISTANCE OF 262.03 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF
N52°40'51"W WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 260.47 FEET;
2) THENCE N41°01'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 356.86 FEET;
THENCE N45°30'06"E, A DISTANCE OF 622.29 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9;
THENCE S00°09'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 863.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 202,592 SQUARE FEET OR 4.651 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AS REFERENCE TO
FINAL PLAT OF EASTRIDGE SECOND FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE BEARS NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 2634.32
FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED
WITH A WITH A 2 ” ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 23503, 1996 AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED A WITH A 2 1/2”
ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR STAMPED PLS 28285, WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS
REFERENCED THERETO
EXHIBIT B IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT B MAY BE
USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY.
PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY
BY FRANK A. KOHL, PLS# 37067
30
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT A-2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM DISTRICT NO. 2
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9;
THENCE NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 950.41 FEET ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S45°30'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 622.29 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE
GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD;
THENCE N41°01'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 2518.11 FEET ON SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 742.09 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°19'08", A DISTANCE OF 509.26
FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N59°53'25"W WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 499.32 FEET TO THE
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST VINE STREET;
THENCE S88°38'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 2534.03 FEET ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO
THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9;
THENCE S00°09'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 1653.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 2,809,099 SQUARE FEET OR 64.488 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AS REFERENCE TO
FINAL PLAT OF EASTRIDGE SECOND FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE BEARS NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 2634.32
FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED
WITH A WITH A 2 ” ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 23503, 1996 AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED A WITH A 2 1/2”
ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR STAMPED PLS 28285, WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS
REFERENCED THERETO
EXHIBIT B IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT B MAY BE
USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY.
PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY
BY FRANK A KOHL, PLS# 37067
31
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT A-3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 3 BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM DISTRICT NO. 3
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9;
THENCE NORTH 88°55'57" WEST FOR 1,257.90 FEET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9
THENCE N00°13'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 94.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88°56'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 1350.59 FEET TO EAST LINE OF EASTRIDGE SECOND
FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS
OFFICE;
THENCE ON SAID EAST LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES;
1) THENCE N00°17'47"E, A DISTANCE OF 1003.03 FEET;
2) THENCE N89°29'01"W, A DISTANCE OF 38.08 FEET;
3) THENCE N00°17'47"E, A DISTANCE OF 1480.45 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD AND A NON-TANGENT POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES;
1) THENCE ALONG SAID NONTANGECT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
692.09 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°31'20", A DISTANCE OF 574.03 FEET, A CHORD
BEARING OF S63°57'51"E WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 557.72 FEET;
2) THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE S41°01'15"E, A DISTANCE OF
1566.60 FEET TO A NONTANGENT POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 534.50 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°55'11", A DISTANCE OF 409.72 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S22°11'05"W
WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 399.76 FEET;
THENCE S00°13'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 711.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 2,751,597 SQUARE FEET OR 63.168 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AS REFERENCE TO
FINAL PLAT OF EASTRIDGE SECOND FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE BEARS NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 2634.32
FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED
WITH A WITH A 2 ” ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 23503, 1996 AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED A WITH A 2 1/2”
ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR STAMPED PLS 28285, WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS
REFERENCED THERETO
EXHIBIT B IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT B MAY BE
USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY.
PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY
BY FRANK A KOHL, PLS# 37067
32
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT A-4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 4 BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM DISTRICT NO. 4
THAT PART OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE
6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9;
THENCE NORTH 88°55'57" WEST FOR 1,257.90 FEET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88°55'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 65.51 FEET CONTINUING ON SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE
WEST CENTER 1/16TH CORNER;
THENCE S00°13'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 1311.25 FEET ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9;
THENCE N89°43'01"W, A DISTANCE OF 238.69 FEET TO A NON-TANGENT POINT OF CURVATURE
TO THE RIGHT;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 327.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 21°50'53", A DISTANCE OF 124.88 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N78°48'58"W WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 124.13 FEET;
THENCE N67°53'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 207.56 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 272.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 21°48'05", A DISTANCE OF 103.69 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N78°47'34"W WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 103.06 FEET;
THENCE N89°41'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 41.75 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 272.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 19°06'10", A DISTANCE OF 90.85 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S80°45'18"W WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 90.43 FEET;
THENCE S71°12'13"W, A DISTANCE OF 250.44 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 327.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 19°06'10", A DISTANCE OF 109.19 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S80°45'18"W WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 108.69 FEET;
THENCE N89°41'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 195.27 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1/16TH CORNER OF
SECTIONS 8 AND 9;
THENCE N00°17'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 1323.84 FEET ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE ON THE EAST LINE OF THE FINAL PLAT OF EAST RIDGE SECOND FILNG RECORDED AT
REC NO 20160047573 IN THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE FOR THE
FOLLOWING 3 COURSES;
1) THENCE N00°17'47"E, A DISTANCE OF 55.99 FEET;
2) THENCE S88°50'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 38.08 FEET;
3) THENCE N00°17'09"E, A DISTANCE OF 38.08 FEET;
THENCE S88°56'09"E, A DISTANCE OF 1350.59 FEET;
THENCE S00°13'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 94.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 1,819,728 SQUARE FEET OR 41.775 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AS REFERENCE TO
FINAL PLAT OF EASTRIDGE SECOND FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE BEARS NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 2634.32
FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED
WITH A WITH A 2 ” ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 23503, 1996 AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED A WITH A 2 1/2”
ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR STAMPED PLS 28285, WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS
REFERENCED THERETO
EXHIBIT B IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT B MAY BE
USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY.
PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY
BY FRANK A KOHL, PLS# 37067
33
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT A-5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 5 BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM DISTRICT NO. 5
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9;
THENCE NORTH 88°55'57" WEST FOR 1,257.90 FEET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9
THENCE N00°13'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 805.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 534.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 43°55'11", A DISTANCE OF 409.72 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N22°11'05"E WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 399.76 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE GREAT
WESTERN RAILROAD;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES;
1) THENCE S41°01'15"E, A DISTANCE OF 1309.06 FEET TO A NON-TANGENT POINT OF
CURVATURE;
2) THENCE ALONG SAID NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 742.09
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°36'51", A DISTANCE OF 305.85 FEET, A CHORD BEARING
OF S53°36'50"E WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 303.69 FEET;
THENCE S00°09'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 783,129 SQUARE FEET OR 17.978 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AS REFERENCE TO
FINAL PLAT OF EASTRIDGE SECOND FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE BEARS NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 2634.32
FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED
WITH A WITH A 2 ” ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 23503, 1996 AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED A WITH A 2 1/2”
ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR STAMPED PLS 28285, WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS
REFERENCED THERETO
EXHIBIT B IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT B MAY BE
USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY.
PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY
BY FRANK A KOHL# 37067
35
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT A-6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 6 BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM DISTRICT NO. 6
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9;
THENCE NORTH 88°55'57" WEST FOR 1,323.41 FEET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TO THE WEST CENTER 1/16TH CORNER;
THENCE S00°13'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 1311.25 FEET ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S00°13'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 1330.10 FEET CONTINUING ON SAID EAST LINE TO THE
WEST 1/16TH CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 9 AND 16;
THENCE N89°12'17"W, A DISTANCE OF 631.24 FEET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 9 TO
THE EAST LINE OF THAT PARCEL RECORDED AT REC NO 92016987 IN THE LARIMER COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE;
THENCE ON SAID EAST LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 6 COURSES;
1) THENCE N13°44'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 250.02 FEET;
2) THENCE N15°22'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 112.04 FEET;
3) THENCE N57°53'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 181.02 FEET;
4) THENCE N49°41'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 146.77 FEET;
5) THENCE N43°21'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 362.79 FEET;
6) THENCE N60°03'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 100.57 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9;
THENCE N00°17'21"E, A DISTANCE OF 477.22 FEET ON SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTH 1/16TH
CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 8 AND 9;
THENCE S89°41'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 195.27 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 327.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 19°06'10", A DISTANCE OF 109.19 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N80°45'18"E WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 108.69 FEET;
THENCE N71°12'13"E, A DISTANCE OF 250.44 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 272.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 19°06'10", A DISTANCE OF 90.85 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N80°45'18"E WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 90.43 FEET;
THENCE S89°41'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 41.75 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 272.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 21°48'05", A DISTANCE OF 103.69 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S78°47'34"E WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 103.06 FEET;
THENCE S67°53'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 207.56 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 327.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 21°50'53", A DISTANCE OF 124.88 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S78°48'58"E WITH A
CHORD DISTANCE OF 124.13 FEET;
THENCE S89°43'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 238.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 1,440,733 SQUARE FEET OR 33.075 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AS REFERENCE TO
FINAL PLAT OF EASTRIDGE SECOND FILING RECORDED AT REC NO 20160047573 IN THE
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE BEARS NORTH 00°09'57" EAST FOR 2634.32
FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED
WITH A WITH A 2 ” ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 23503, 1996 AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, MONUMENTED A WITH A 2 1/2”
ALUMINUM CAP ON NO 6 REBAR STAMPED PLS 28285, WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS
REFERENCED THERETO
EXHIBIT B IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT B MAY BE
USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY.
PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY
BY FRANK A KOHL, PLS# 37067
36
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT B-1
DISTRICT NO. 1 BOUNDARY MAP
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 34995"
AND DATED "2016"
CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CENTER QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "1996"
NORTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2 ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
S88°56'09"E 1323.29'
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S88°38'15"E 2640.91'
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
2
6
3
4
.
3
2
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
E. VINE DRIVE
DISTRICT NO. 1
202,592 SQ. FT.
4.651 ACRES
EA
S
T
R
I
D
G
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
I
L
I
N
G
RE
C
.
N
O
.
2
0
1
6
0
0
4
7
5
7
3
N00°09'57"E
87.10'
Δ=21°41'33"
R=692.09'
L=262.03'
CB=N52°40'51"W
C=260.47'
N45
°
3
0
'
0
6
"
E
622
.
2
9
'
POINT OF BEGINNING
S0
0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
86
3
.
3
1
'
N0
°
1
7
'
4
7
"
E
2
6
4
7
.
9
0
'
WE
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
N
4
1
°
0
1
'
1
5
"
W
3
5
6
.
8
6
'
N
O
R
T
H
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
L
I
N
E
G
R
E
A
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
-
HARTFORD HOMES, LLC
-
METRO DISRICTS
HFH000008.01
AN
FK
01/08/19
Checked By:
Project No:
Drawn By:
Date:
5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210
Johnstown, CO 80534
970.800.3300 •GallowayUS.com
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT NO. 1
SECTION CORNER
METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
LEGEND
ADJACENT LOT LINE
37
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT B-2
DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARY MAP
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 34995"
AND DATED "2016"
CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CENTER QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "1996"
NORTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2 ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
S88°56'09"E 1323.29'
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S88°38'15"E 2640.91'
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
2
6
3
4
.
3
2
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
E. VINE DRIVE
DISTRICT NO. 2
2,809,099 SQ. FT.
64.488 ACRES
EA
S
T
R
I
D
G
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
I
L
I
N
G
RE
C
.
N
O
.
2
0
1
6
0
0
4
7
5
7
3
N00°09'57"E
950.41'
N
4
1
°
0
1
'
1
5
"
W
2
5
1
8
.
1
1
'
Δ=39°19'08"
R=742.09'
L=509.26'
CB=N59°53'25"W
C=499.32'
S88°38'14"E 2534.03'
S0
0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
1
6
5
3
.
9
1
'
S45
°
3
0
'
0
6
"
W
622
.
2
9
'
POINT OF BEGINNING
N0
°
1
7
'
4
7
"
E
2
6
4
7
.
9
0
'
WE
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
N
O
R
T
H
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
L
I
N
E
G
R
E
A
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
-
HARTFORD HOMES, LLC
-
METRO DISRICTS
HFH000008.01
AN
FK
01/08/19
Checked By:
Project No:
Drawn By:
Date:
5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210
Johnstown, CO 80534
970.800.3300 •GallowayUS.com
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT NO. 2
SECTION CORNER
METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
LEGEND
ADJACENT LOT LINE
38
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT B-3
DISTRICT NO. 3 BOUNDARY MAP
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 34995"
AND DATED "2016"
CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CENTER QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "1996"
NORTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2 ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
S88°56'09"E 1323.29'
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S88°38'15"E 2640.91'
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
2
6
3
4
.
3
2
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
E. VINE DRIVE
DISTRICT NO. 3
2,751,597 SQ. FT.
63.168 ACRES
EA
S
T
R
I
D
G
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
I
L
I
N
G
RE
C
.
N
O
.
2
0
1
6
0
0
4
7
5
7
3
N88°55'57"W 1257.90'
N00°13'30"E
94.01'
POINT OF BEGINNING
N88°56'09"W 1350.59'
N0
0
°
1
7
'
4
7
"
E
1
0
0
3
.
0
3
'
N89°29'01"W
38.08'
N0
0
°
1
7
'
4
7
"
E
1
4
8
0
.
4
5
'
Δ=43°55'11"
R=534.50'
L=409.72'
CB=S22°11'05"W
C=399.76'
S0
0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
W
7
1
1
.
9
6
'
N0
°
1
7
'
4
7
"
E
2
6
4
7
.
9
0
'
WE
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
Δ=47°31'20"
R=692.09'
L=574.03'
CB=S63°57'51"E
C=557.72'
S
4
1
°
0
1
'
1
5
"
E
1
5
6
6
.
6
0
'
S
O
U
T
H
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
L
I
N
E
G
R
E
A
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
-
HARTFORD HOMES, LLC
-
METRO DISRICTS
HFH000008.01
AN
FK
01/08/19
Checked By:
Project No:
Drawn By:
Date:
5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210
Johnstown, CO 80534
970.800.3300 •GallowayUS.com
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT NO. 3
SECTION CORNER
METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
LEGEND
ADJACENT LOT LINE
39
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT B-4
DISTRICT NO. 4 BOUNDARY MAP
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED " DB & CO"SOUTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM
CAP ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
IN MONUMENT BOX
STAMPED "LS 34174"
AND DATED "2015"
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 34995"
AND DATED "2016"
CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CENTER QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "1996"
SOUTH 1/16 CORNER:
SECTION 9 AND 8,
T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM
CAP ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 7839"
AND DATED "2000"
MULBERRY STREET
(HIGHWAY 14)
WEST 1/16 CORNER:
SECTION 9 AND 16,
T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
OWNER:
SPRINGER-FISHER INC
REC. NO. 92016987
OWNER:
VALLEY 14 LLC
REC. NO. 20040111336
N0
°
0
9
'
5
4
"
E
2
6
3
5
.
1
8
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
S89°12'02"E 1326.08'
SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S88°56'09"E 1323.29'
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
N89°12'17"W 1326.07'
SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S0
°
1
7
'
2
1
"
W
1
3
2
3
.
6
9
'
WE
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
W
E
S
T
H
A
L
F
,
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
DISTRICT NO. 4
1,819,728 SQ. FT.
41.775 ACRES
EA
S
T
R
I
D
G
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
I
L
I
N
G
RE
C
.
N
O
.
2
0
1
6
0
0
4
7
5
7
3
S0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
W
2
6
4
1
.
3
5
'
N88°55'57"W 1257.90'
S0
0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
W
1
3
1
1
.
2
5
'
N89°43'01"W
238.69'
C1N67
°
5
3
'
3
2
"
W
207.
5
6
'
C2
N89°41'37"W
41.75'
C3
S71°12
'
1
3
"
W
250.44'
C4
N89°41'37"W
195.27'
N0
0
°
1
7
'
0
4
"
E
1
3
2
3
.
8
4
'
N00°17'47"E
55.99'
S88°50'11"E
38.08'
N00°17'47"E
38.08'
S88°56'09"E 1350.59'
POINT OF BEGINNING S0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
2
6
3
4
.
3
2
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
N88°55'57"W
65.51'
S00°13'30"W
94.01'
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C1
C2
C3
C4
RADIUS
327.50
272.50
272.50
327.50
LENGTH
124.88
103.69
90.85
109.19
DELTA
21°50'53"
21°48'05"
19°06'10"
19°06'10"
BEARING
N78°48'58"W
N78°47'34"W
S80°45'18"W
S80°45'18"W
CHORD
124.13
103.06
90.43
108.69
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
-
HARTFORD HOMES, LLC
-
METRO DISRICTS
HFH000008.01
AN
FK
01/08/19
Checked By:
Project No:
Drawn By:
Date:
5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210
Johnstown, CO 80534
970.800.3300 •GallowayUS.com
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT NO. 4
SECTION CORNER
METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
LEGEND
ADJACENT LOT LINE
40
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT B-5
DISTRICT NO. 5 BOUNDARY MAP
S88°56'09"E 1323.29'
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S88°38'15"E 2640.91'
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
2
6
3
4
.
3
2
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
EA
S
T
R
I
D
G
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
I
L
I
N
G
RE
C
.
N
O
.
2
0
1
6
0
0
4
7
5
7
3
N0
°
1
7
'
4
7
"
E
2
6
4
7
.
9
0
'
WE
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
POINT OF BEGINNING
CENTER QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "1996"
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 34995"
AND DATED "2016"
CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
NORTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2 ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "PLS 28285"
N88°55'57"W 1257.90'
N0
0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
E
8
0
5
.
9
8
'
Δ=43°55'11"
R=534.50'
L=409.72'
CB=N22°11'05"E
C=399.76'
DISTRICT NO. 5
783,129 SQ. FT.
17.978 ACRES
Δ=23°36'51"
R=742.09'
L=305.85'
CB=S53°36'50"E
C=303.69'
S00°09'57"W 31.77'
S
4
1
°
0
1
'
1
5
"
E
1
3
0
9
.
0
6
'
S
O
U
T
H
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
L
I
N
E
G
R
E
A
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
-
HARTFORD HOMES, LLC
-
METRO DISRICTS
HFH000008.01
AN
FK
01/08/19
Checked By:
Project No:
Drawn By:
Date:
5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210
Johnstown, CO 80534
970.800.3300 •GallowayUS.com
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT NO. 5
SECTION CORNER
METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
LEGEND
ADJACENT LOT LINE
41
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT B-6
DISTRICT NO. 6 BOUNDARY MAP
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED " DB & CO"SOUTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM
CAP ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
IN MONUMENT BOX
STAMPED "LS 34174"
AND DATED "2015"
WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 34995"
AND DATED "2016"
CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CENTER QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 9, T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "1996"
SOUTH 1/16 CORNER:
SECTION 9 AND 8,
T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM
CAP ON NUMBER 6 REBAR
STAMPED "LS 7839"
AND DATED "2000"
MULBERRY STREET
(HIGHWAY 14)
WEST 1/16 CORNER:
SECTION 9 AND 16,
T.7 N. R. 68 W.
FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP
ON NUMBER 6 REBAR.
STAMPED "PLS 23503"
AND DATED "2007"
OWNER:
SPRINGER-FISHER INC
REC. NO. 92016987
OWNER:
VALLEY 14 LLC
REC. NO. 20040111336
N0
°
0
9
'
5
4
"
E
2
6
3
5
.
1
8
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
S89°12'02"E 1326.08'
SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S88°56'09"E 1323.29'
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
N89°12'17"W 1326.07'
SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9
S0
°
1
7
'
2
1
"
W
1
3
2
3
.
6
9
'
WE
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
W
E
S
T
H
A
L
F
,
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
DISTRICT NO. 6
1,440,733 SQ. FT.
33.075 ACRES
EA
S
T
R
I
D
G
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
I
L
I
N
G
RE
C
.
N
O
.
2
0
1
6
0
0
4
7
5
7
3
S0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
W
2
6
4
1
.
3
5
'
POINT OF
BEGINNING
N88°55'57"W 1323.41'
S0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
W
1
3
1
1
.
2
5
'
S0
0
°
1
3
'
3
0
"
W
1
3
3
0
.
1
0
'
N89°12'17"W
631.24'
N13°44'09"W
250.02'
N15°22'09"W
112.04'
N57°53'09"W
181.02'
N
4
9
°
4
1
'
0
9
"
W
14
6
.
7
7
'
N43°21'09"W
362.79'
N60°03'09"W
100.57'
N0
0
°
1
7
'
2
1
"
E
47
7
.
2
2
'
S89°41'37"E
195.27'
C5
N71°12'13"E
250.44'
C6
C8
S89°43'01"E
238.69'
S89°41'37"E
41.75'
C7
S67°53'32"E
207.56'
S0
°
0
9
'
5
7
"
W
2
6
3
4
.
3
2
'
EA
S
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
OF
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
9
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C5
C6
C7
C8
RADIUS
327.50
272.50
272.50
327.50
LENGTH
109.19
90.85
103.69
124.88
DELTA
19°06'10"
19°06'10"
21°48'05"
21°50'53"
BEARING
N80°45'18"E
N80°45'18"E
S78°47'34"E
S78°48'58"E
CHORD
108.69
90.43
103.06
124.13
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
-
HARTFORD HOMES, LLC
-
METRO DISRICTS
HFH000008.01
AN
FK
01/08/19
Checked By:
Project No:
Drawn By:
Date:
5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210
Johnstown, CO 80534
970.800.3300 •GallowayUS.com
SECTION CORNER
METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
LEGEND
ADJACENT LOT LINE
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT NO. 6
42
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF INCLUSION AREA
43
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT D
INCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY MAP
VALLEY 14 LLC
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 800'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.08.2019
VICINITY MAP 4000'1600'800'0'VALLEY 14 LLC
44
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT E
VICINITY MAP
SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 800'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.07.2019
VICINITY MAP 4000'1600'800'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
45
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT F
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
Date January 8, 2019
Acreage: 229.43
Units: 1608
Group Activity Unit Unit Cost Qty Total Per Unit Qty Total Per Unit
Earthwork Clear and Grub Acre 200.00$ 229.43 45,887$ 29$
Earthwork Strip Topsoil and Stockpile - 6" Cubic Yard 2.85$ 185,076 527,467$ 328$
Earthwork Overlot Grading Cubic Yard 3.15$ 525,000 1,653,750$ 1,028$
Earthwork Finish Grading Square Yard 1.25$ 1,110,457 1,388,071$ 863$
Earthwork Replace Topsoil Cubic Yard 2.85$ 185,076 527,467$ 328$
Earthwork Remove Concrete Lined Irrigation Ditch Linear Feet 7.75$ 10,650 82,538$ 51$
Earthwork Remove Tree Each 615.00$ 30 18,450$ 11$
Earthwork Earthwork Subtotal 4,243,630$ 2,639$
Sanitary Connect to Existing Each 5,400.00$ 5 27,000$ 17$
Sanitary Sanitary Sewer Dewatering Day 850.00$ 60 51,000$ 32$
Sanitary 8" Sanitary Sewer Linear Feet 70.20$ 41,044 2,881,302$ 1,792$
Sanitary 12" Sanitary Sewer Linear Feet 83.70$ 7,901 661,338$ 411$
Sanitary 4' DIA Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 3,786.67$ 370 1,401,067$ 871$
Sanitary 4" Sanitary Service Each 1,852.50$ 1,009 1,869,173$ 1,162$
Sanitary Jetting / Camera Linear Feet 2.50$ 48,945 122,364$ 76$
Sanitary Off Site 12" Sanitary Sewer Linear Feet 83.70$ 1,139 95,361$ 59$
Sanitary Offsite 4' DIA Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 3,786.67$ 11 41,653$ 26$
Sanitary Sanitary Subtotal 7,150,257$ 4,446.68$
Water Connect to Existing Each 3,200.00$ 18 57,600$ 36$
Water 8" Water Main Linear Feet 44.35$ 43,705 1,938,315$ 1,205$
Water 8" x 8" Water Main Tee Each 465.00$ 85 39,690$ 25$
Water 8" Water Main Gate Valve Each 1,240.00$ 263 326,720$ 203$
Water 8" x 8" Water Main Cross Each 692.00$ 7 5,136$ 3$
Water 8" Water Main Air Release Valve Each 3,310.00$ 22 73,701$ 46$
Water 8" Water Main - Bend Each 300.00$ 130 38,966$ 24$
Water 8" Waterline Lowering Each 2,230.00$ 59 132,410$ 82$
Water 12" Water Main Linear Feet 59.00$ 9,687 571,541$ 355$
Water 12" x 8" Water Main Cross Each 1,520.00$ 12 17,884$ 11$
Water 12" x 8" Water Main Tee Each 940.00$ 12 11,060$ 7$
Water 12" Water Main Gate Valve Each 2,630.00$ 67 175,349$ 109$
Water 12" Water Main - Bend Each 750.00$ 31 23,531$ 15$
Water 12" Waterline Lowering Each 4,000.00$ 12 47,063$ 29$
Water 3/4" Water Service Each 2,900.00$ 777 2,253,300$ 1,401$
Water 1.5" Water Service Each 5,000.00$ 232 1,160,000$ 721$
Water Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 5,000.00$ 189 946,316$ 589$
Water Water Main Testing Linear Feet 1.10$ 53,392 58,731$ 37$
Water Offsite 12" Water Main Linear Feet 59.00$ 1,118 65,933$ 41$
Water Offsite 12" Water Main - Bend Each 750.00$ 12 9,000$ 6$
Water Offsite 20" Water Main Linear Feet 100.00$ 2,008 200,755$ 125$
Water Water Subtotal 7,306,574$ 4,544$ 846,428$ 526$
Non-Pot Water Non-Potable Water Pumphouse Each 450,000.00$ -$ -$ 2 900,000$ 560$
Non-Pot Water Non-Potable Water Main Linear Feet 60.00$ -$ -$ 62,370 3,742,200$ 2,327$
Non-Pot Water Non-Potable Water Subtotal -$ -$ 4,642,200$ 2,887$
Storm 18" RCP Linear Feet 55.80$ 1,317 73,476$ 46$
Storm 24" RCP Linear Feet 73.00$ 1,352 98,686$ 61$
Storm 30" RCP Linear Feet 91.00$ 4,893 445,272$ 277$
Storm 36" RCP Linear Feet 124.00$ 9,765 1,210,891$ 753$
Storm 42" RCP Linear Feet 160.00$ 1,226 196,117$ 122$
Storm 48" RCP Linear Feet 195.00$ 5,271 1,027,896$ 639$
Storm 54" RCP Linear Feet 230.00$ 1,261 290,014$ 180$
Storm 60" RCP Linear Feet 265.00$ 850 225,372$ 140$
Storm 66" RCP Linear Feet 300.00$ 629 188,625$ 117$
Storm 72" RCP Linear Feet 330.00$ 766 252,925$ 157$
Storm 42" RCP FES Each 1,500.00$ 2 3,000$ 2$
Storm 48" RCP FES Each 2,000.00$ 3 6,000$ 4$
Storm 66" RCP FES Each 3,500.00$ 2 7,000$ 4$
Storm 72" RCP FES Each 4,000.00$ 1 4,000$ 2$
Storm 6' DIA Storm Manhole Each 4,573.33$ 97 443,613$ 276$
Storm 7' DIA Storm Manhole Each 9,600.00$ 42 403,200$ 251$
Storm 8' DIA Storm Manhole Each 10,500.00$ 17 178,500$ 111$
Storm 5' Type R Inlet Each 5,265.00$ 54 286,581$ 178$
Storm 10' Type R Inlet Each 7,920.00$ 66 522,144$ 325$
Storm 15' Type R Inlet Each 10,600.00$ 4 38,824$ 24$
Storm Type C Inlet Each 3,340.00$ 18 60,600$ 38$
Storm Outlet Structure Each 10,800.00$ 5 54,000$ 34$
Storm Offsite Box Culvert Liner Feet 500.00$ 142 70,865$ 44$
Storm Storm Subtotal 6,087,601$ 3,786$
Concrete Fine Grade Curb And Gutter Linear Feet 2.10$ 79,847 167,678$ 104$
Concrete Fine Grade Concrete Sidewalks and Trails Square Feet 0.68$ 530,476 358,071$ 223$
Concrete Subgrade Prep Square Yard 1.30$ 81,121 105,458$ 66$
Concrete Roadbase for underneath Curb and Gutter and Flatwork Ton 22.60$ 18,773 424,269$ 264$
Concrete 6" Depth Concrete Trail Square Feet 5.00$ 160,265 801,326$ 498$
Concrete 6" Depth Detached Sidewalk Square Feet 5.50$ 370,211 2,036,161$ 1,266$
Concrete Curb And Gutter Linear Feet 21.50$ 79,847 1,716,704$ 1,068$
Concrete Handicap Ramps Each 1,622.50$ 295 479,105$ 298$
Concrete Flyash Mobilization Each 3,510.00$ 5 17,550$ 11$
Concrete Flyash Treated Subgrade 12", 12% Square Yard 9.85$ 81,121 799,046$ 497$
Concrete Concrete Subtotal 6,905,368$ 4,294$
Asphalt Mobilization - Streets Each 6,210.00$ 6 37,260$ 23$
Asphalt Subgrade Prep Square Yard 1.30$ 218,055 283,472$ 176$
Asphalt Alley - 4" Asphalt / 6" Class 5 Agg Base Square Yard 28.50$ -$ -$ 61,712 1,758,792$ 1,094$
Asphalt Alley - 5.5" Asphalt / 8" Class 5 Agg Base Square Yard 36.35$ -$ -$ 61,712 2,243,231$ 1,395$
Asphalt Local Street - 5" Asphalt / 7" Class 5 Agg Base Square Yard 30.80$ 102,826 3,167,044$ 1,970$
Asphalt Local Street - 5.5" Asphalt / 8" Class 5 Agg Base Square Yard 36.35$ 102,826 3,737,729$ 2,324$
Asphalt Collector Street - 6" Asphalt / 8" Class 5 Agg Base Square Yard 37.50$ 53,517 2,006,885$ 1,248$
Asphalt Collector Street - 6.5" Asphalt / 10" Class 5 Agg Base Square Yard 41.65$ 53,517 2,228,981$ 1,386$
Asphalt Flyash Mobilization Each 3,510.00$ 5 17,550$ 11$
Asphalt Flyash Treated Subgrade 12", 12% Square Yard 9.85$ 218,055 2,147,842$ 1,336$
Asphalt Signing Acre of Total Dev. 925.63$ 229 212,370$ 132$
Asphalt Pavement Marking Acre of Total Dev. 362.99$ 229 83,282$ 52$
Total Project
Basic Public Improvements Non-Basic Public Improvements
Springer-Fisher-Whitham
Metro District Cost Estimate
Date January 8, 2019
Acreage: 229.43
Units: 1608
Group Activity Unit Unit Cost Qty Total Per Unit Qty Total Per Unit
Total Project
Basic Public Improvements Non-Basic Public Improvements
Springer-Fisher-Whitham
Metro District Cost Estimate
Asphalt Adjust Sanitary Manhole In Asphalt Pavement Each 560.00$ 370 207,200$ 129$
Asphalt Adjust Storm Manhole In Asphalt Pavement Each 560.00$ 156 87,360$ 54$
Asphalt Adjust Valve Box In Asphalt Pavement Each 450.00$ 352 158,590$ 99$
Asphalt Asphalt Subtotal 14,375,566$ 8,940$ 4,002,023$ 2,489$
Erosion Erosion Control Mobilization Each 2,700.00$ 6 15,911$ 10$
Erosion Erosion Control BMPs Acre 4,352.10$ 229.43 998,517$ 621$
Erosion SWMP Inspections and Permits Acre 172.42$ 229.43 39,559$ 25$
Erosion Erosion Control Maintenance Month 2,700.00$ 24 64,800$ 40$
Misc. Ongoing SWMP Management Month 3,780.00$ 24 90,720$ 56$
Erosion Erosion Control, Maint. Subtotal 1,209,508$ 752$
Landscaping Landscaping / Neighborhood Park Development Acre of Total Dev. 32,712.17$ 129.43 4,233,936$ 2,633$ 100.00 3,271,217$ 2,034$
Landscaping Pollinator Corridors Lump Sum 160,800.00$ 1 160,800$ 100$
Landscaping Cooper Slough Improvements Lump Sum 500,000.00$ 1 500,000$ 311$
Landscaping Lake Canal Improvements Lump Sum 150,000.00$ 1 150,000$ 93$
Landscaping Mulberry Frontage Lanscape Improvements Acres 500,000.00$ 1 500,000$ 311$
Landscaping Fencing Linear Feet 20.00$ 8,252 165,031$ 103$
Landscaping / OS Landscaping and Fence Subtotal 4,398,967$ 2,735.68$ 4,582,017$ 2,850$
Misc. / Amenity Dry Utility Conduit Crossings Lot 550.00$ 1,607 883,850$ 550$
Misc. / Amenity Dry Utility Coordination Lot 165.00$ 1,607 265,155$ 165$
Misc. / Amenity Neighborhood Pool Lump Sum 3,000,000.00$ 1 3,000,000$ 1,866$
Misc. / Amenity Commercial Promenade Lump Sum 3,000,000.00$ 1 3,000,000$ 1,866$
Misc. / Amenity Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings Each 12,500.00$ 6 75,000$ 47$
Misc. / Amenity Gateway / Monumentation and ROW Lump Sum 1,250,000.00$ 1 1,250,000$ 777$
Misc. / Amenity Greenfields Rail Crossing Lump Sum 500,000.00$ 1 500,000$ 311$
Misc. / Amenity Adjust existing sewer manhole to grade Each 920.00$ 7 6,440$ 4$
Misc. / Amenity Pothole Existing Utilities Hour 210.00$ 350 73,455$ 46$
Misc. / Amenity Greenfield Offsite Cost Including RAB (Earth, Concrete, & Asphalt) Lump Sum 524,453.00$ -$ 1 524,453$ 326$
Misc. / Amenity Mulberry Instersection and Median Improvements Lump Sum 300,000.00$ -$ -$ 1 300,000$ 187$
Testing Testing And Observation Acre 3,366.70$ 229.43 772,433$ 480$
Misc. Overall Mobilization & General Conditions Acre 8,024.74$ 229.43 1,841,142$ 1,145$
Misc. Engineering/Survey/Construction Management (15% of Constuction Costs) Lump Sum 34,589.38$ 229.43 7,935,956$ 4,935$ 3,408,318$ 2,120$
Contingency Contingency (20% of Construction Costs) Lump Sum 46,119.17$ 229.43 10,581,274$ 6,580$ 4,544,424$ 2,826$
Misc. / Amenity Miscellaneous Subtotal 22,359,704$ 13,905$ 16,602,195$ 10,325$
Springer Fisher Metro District Development Costs 74,037,174$ 46,043$ 30,674,863$ 19,076$
47
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT G
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT MAPS
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.07.2019
METRO DISTRICT MAP
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
OPEN SPACE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.
METRO DISTRICT MAP
FENCING 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
FENCE
01.07.2019
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.
METRO DISTRICT MAP
STREET PLAN 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
STREETS
01.07.2019
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.
METRO DISTRICT MAP
TRAILS 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
TRAILS
01.07.2019
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.07.2019
METRO DISTRICT MAP
WATER 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
8" WATER LINE8''W
12''W 12" WATER LINE
W EXISTING WATER LINE
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.07.2019
METRO DISTRICT MAP
NON-POTABLE WATER 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
NON-POTBALE WATER LINENPW
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.07.2019
METRO DISTRICT MAP
SANITARY SEWER 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
8" SANITARY SEWER LINE8''SS
12''SS 12" SANITARY SEWER LINE
This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 200'-0"Hartford Homes, LLC.01.07.2019
METRO DISTRICT MAP
STORM DRAIN 1000'400'200'0'SPRINGER-FISHER-WHITHAM
STORM DRAIN
48
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT H
FINANCIAL PLAN
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
1 Development Projection at 40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills for Debt Service -- 12/21/2018
2050 Series 2032, G.O. Bonds, P&C Refg of (proposed) Series 2022 + New, 100x, Assumes Investment Grade, 30-yr. Maturity (SERVICE PLAN)
2042
0 O&G Res'l Dist #2 District #2 District #2 District #2 Comm'l Dist #1 District #1 District #1 District #1
2 Total D/S Mill Levy D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Total D/S Mill Levy D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Total
Assessed [40.000 Target] Collections Collected Assessed [20.000 Target] Collections Collected Available
YEAR Value [40.000 Cap]@ 98%@ 6%Value [20.000 Cap]@ 98%@ 6%Revenue
2017 $0
2018 0
2019 0
2020 0 40.000 $0 $0 0 20.000 $0 $0 0
2021 0 40.000 0 0 0 20.000 0 0 0
2022 4,057,100 40.000 159,038 9,542 0 20.000 0 0 168,581
2023 12,197,336 40.000 478,136 28,688 0 20.000 0 0 506,824
2024 16,463,749 40.000 645,379 38,723 0 20.000 0 0 684,102
2025 20,597,427 40.000 807,419 48,445 0 20.000 0 0 855,864
2026 28,008,568 40.000 1,097,936 65,876 694,782 20.000 13,618 817 1,178,247
2027 37,489,668 40.000 1,469,595 88,176 9,307,895 20.000 182,435 10,946 1,751,151
2028 41,584,214 40.000 1,630,101 97,806 23,688,792 20.000 464,300 27,858 2,220,066
2029 42,668,101 40.000 1,672,590 100,355 23,688,792 20.000 464,300 27,858 2,265,103
2030 45,228,187 40.000 1,772,945 106,377 25,110,120 20.000 492,158 29,530 2,401,009
2031 45,228,187 40.000 1,772,945 106,377 25,110,120 20.000 492,158 29,530 2,401,009
2032 47,941,878 40.000 1,879,322 112,759 26,616,727 20.000 521,688 31,301 2,545,070
2033 47,941,878 40.000 1,879,322 112,759 26,616,727 20.000 521,688 31,301 2,545,070
2034 50,818,391 40.000 1,992,081 119,525 28,213,731 20.000 552,989 33,179 2,697,774
2035 50,818,391 40.000 1,992,081 119,525 28,213,731 20.000 552,989 33,179 2,697,774
2036 53,867,494 40.000 2,111,606 126,696 29,906,555 20.000 586,168 35,170 2,859,641
2037 53,867,494 40.000 2,111,606 126,696 29,906,555 20.000 586,168 35,170 2,859,641
2038 57,099,544 40.000 2,238,302 134,298 31,700,948 20.000 621,339 37,280 3,031,219
2039 57,099,544 40.000 2,238,302 134,298 31,700,948 20.000 621,339 37,280 3,031,219
2040 60,525,517 40.000 2,372,600 142,356 33,603,005 20.000 658,619 39,517 3,213,092
2041 60,525,517 40.000 2,372,600 142,356 33,603,005 20.000 658,619 39,517 3,213,092
2042 64,157,048 40.000 2,514,956 150,897 35,619,185 20.000 698,136 41,888 3,405,878
2043 64,157,048 40.000 2,514,956 150,897 35,619,185 20.000 698,136 41,888 3,405,878
2044 68,006,470 40.000 2,665,854 159,951 37,756,336 20.000 740,024 44,401 3,610,231
2045 68,006,470 40.000 2,665,854 159,951 37,756,336 20.000 740,024 44,401 3,610,231
2046 72,086,859 40.000 2,825,805 169,548 40,021,716 20.000 784,426 47,066 3,826,844
2047 72,086,859 40.000 2,825,805 169,548 40,021,716 20.000 784,426 47,066 3,826,844
2048 76,412,070 40.000 2,995,353 179,721 42,423,019 20.000 831,491 49,889 4,056,455
2049 76,412,070 40.000 2,995,353 179,721 42,423,019 20.000 831,491 49,889 4,056,455
2050 80,996,794 40.000 3,175,074 190,504 44,968,400 20.000 881,381 52,883 4,299,842
2051 80,996,794 40.000 3,175,074 190,504 44,968,400 20.000 881,381 52,883 4,299,842
2052 85,856,602 40.000 3,365,579 201,935 47,666,504 20.000 934,263 56,056 4,557,833
2053 85,856,602 40.000 3,365,579 201,935 47,666,504 20.000 934,263 56,056 4,557,833
2054 91,007,998 40.000 3,567,514 214,051 50,526,495 20.000 990,319 59,419 4,831,303
2055 91,007,998 40.000 3,567,514 214,051 50,526,495 20.000 990,319 59,419 4,831,303
2056 96,468,478 40.000 3,781,564 226,894 53,558,084 20.000 1,049,738 62,984 5,121,181
2057 96,468,478 40.000 3,781,564 226,894 53,558,084 20.000 1,049,738 62,984 5,121,181
2058 102,256,587 40.000 4,008,458 240,507 56,771,569 20.000 1,112,723 66,763 5,428,452
2059 102,256,587 40.000 4,008,458 240,507 56,771,569 20.000 1,112,723 66,763 5,428,452
2060 108,391,982 40.000 4,248,966 254,938 60,177,864 20.000 1,179,486 70,769 5,754,159
2061 108,391,982 40.000 4,248,966 254,938 60,177,864 20.000 1,179,486 70,769 5,754,159
2062 114,895,501 40.000 4,503,904 270,234 63,788,535 20.000 1,250,255 75,015 6,099,408
__________ ____________________ __________ __________
103,496,054 6,209,763 27,644,807 1,658,688 139,009,312
12/21/2018 B MMD Fin Plan 18 NR SP FP+2032 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
1
1
2050
2042
0 O&G
2
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
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
Development Projection at 40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills for Debt Service -- 12/21/2018
Series 2032, G.O. Bonds, P&C Refg of (proposed) Series 2022 + New, 100x, Assumes Investment Grade, 30-yr. Maturity (SERVICE PLAN)
Series 2022 Ser. 2032
$43,540,000 Par $64,595,000 Par Surplus Senior Senior Cov. of Net DS: Cov. of Net DS:
[Net $32.442 MM] [Net $21.562 MM]Total Annual Release @ Cumulative Debt/Debt/Target Cap
Net Available Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Funds on Hand* Surplus 50% D/A Surplus Assessed Act'l Value @ 0.00 URA Mills @ 0.00 URA Mills
for Debt Svc Service Service Service Used as Source to $6,459,500 $6,459,500 Target Ratio Ratio + ST TIF Revs + ST TIF Revs
$0 n/a n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%
0 n/a n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%
0 n/a n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%
0 n/a n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%
0 n/a 1318% 35% 0.0% 0.0%
168,581 $0 $0 168,581 0 168,581 357% 20% 0.0% 0.0%
506,824 0 0 506,824 0 675,404 264% 16% 0.0% 0.0%
684,102 0 0 684,102 0 1,359,506 211% 13% 0.0% 0.0%
855,864 544,250 544,250 311,614 0 1,671,120 152% 8% 157.3% 157.3%
1,178,247 2,177,000 2,177,000 (998,753) 0 672,367 93% 7% 54.1% 54.1%
1,751,151 2,177,000 2,177,000 (425,849) 0 246,519 67% 6% 80.4% 80.4%
2,220,066 2,217,000 2,217,000 3,066 0 249,584 66% 6% 100.1% 100.1%
2,265,103 2,260,000 2,260,000 5,103 0 254,688 62% 6% 100.2% 100.2%
2,401,009 2,400,750 2,400,750 259 0 254,947 61% 6% 100.0% 100.0%
2,401,009 2,399,250 2,399,250 1,759 0 256,706 58% 6% 100.1% 100.1%
2,545,070 2,542,250 $0 2,542,250 $255,000 (252,180) 0 4,526 87% 8% 100.1% 100.1%
2,545,070 [Ref'd by Ser. '32]2,368,483 2,368,483 176,587 0 181,113 82%8%107.5%107.5%
2,697,774 2,693,800 2,693,800 3,974 0 185,087 82%8%100.1%100.1%
2,697,774 2,694,400 2,694,400 3,374 0 188,462 77%8%100.1%100.1%
2,859,641 2,854,800 2,854,800 4,841 0 193,302 77%7%100.2%100.2%
2,859,641 2,858,600 2,858,600 1,041 0 194,343 72%7%100.0%100.0%
3,031,219 3,026,800 3,026,800 4,419 0 198,762 71%7%100.1%100.1%
3,031,219 3,027,800 3,027,800 3,419 0 202,181 67%7%100.1%100.1%
3,213,092 3,208,000 3,208,000 5,092 0 207,274 66%6%100.2%100.2%
3,213,092 3,210,200 3,210,200 2,892 0 210,166 62%6%100.1%100.1%
3,405,878 3,401,200 3,401,200 4,678 0 214,844 61%6%100.1%100.1%
3,405,878 3,403,400 3,403,400 2,478 0 217,322 56%6%100.1%100.1%
3,610,231 3,609,000 3,609,000 1,231 0 218,552 55%5%100.0%100.0%
3,610,231 3,609,800 3,609,800 431 0 218,983 51%5%100.0%100.0%
3,826,844 3,823,600 3,823,600 3,244 0 222,227 49%5%100.1%100.1%
3,826,844 3,826,800 3,826,800 44 0 222,271 45%4%100.0%100.0%
4,056,455 4,052,400 4,052,400 4,055 0 226,326 44%4%100.1%100.1%
4,056,455 4,056,400 4,056,400 55 0 226,381 40%4%100.0%100.0%
4,299,842 4,297,200 4,297,200 2,642 0 229,024 38%4%100.1%100.1%
4,299,842 4,295,200 4,295,200 4,642 0 233,666 34%3%100.1%100.1%
4,557,833 4,554,600 4,554,600 3,233 0 236,899 32%3%100.1%100.1%
4,557,833 4,554,800 4,554,800 3,033 0 239,932 28%3%100.1%100.1%
4,831,303 4,830,600 4,830,600 703 0 240,634 26%2%100.0%100.0%
4,831,303 4,830,800 4,830,800 503 0 241,137 22%2%100.0%100.0%
5,121,181 5,120,800 5,120,800 381 0 241,518 19%2%100.0%100.0%
5,121,181 5,118,800 5,118,800 2,381 0 243,899 16%2%100.0%100.0%
5,428,452 5,425,800 5,425,800 2,652 0 246,551 13%1%100.0%100.0%
5,428,452 5,424,200 5,424,200 4,252 0 250,803 10%1%100.1%100.1%
5,754,159 5,750,600 5,750,600 3,559 0 254,362 7%1%100.1%100.1%
5,754,159 5,751,600 5,751,600 2,559 0 256,921 3%0%100.0%100.0%
6,099,408 6,094,400 6,094,400 5,008 261,929 0 n/a n/a 100.1%100.1%
__________________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
139,009,312 16,717,500 121,774,883 138,492,383 255,000 261,929 261,929
[ BDec2118 22nrspB ] [ BDec2118 32igr21B ]
[*] Estimated balance (tbd)
12/21/2018 B MMD Fin Plan 18 NR SP FP+2032 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
2
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential)
1 Assessed Value Summary
2050
2042
< < < < < < < < Residential > > > > > > > > < Platted/Developed Lots > < < < < < < < < Commercial > > > > > > > > < Oil & Gas >
#######Mkt Value As'ed Value As'ed Value Mkt Value As'ed Value As'ed Value
Biennial @ 7.20%@ 29.00%Biennial @ 29.00% @ 87.50%Total
Total Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Cumulative of Market Total Comm'l Total Hotel Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market of Market 3 Assessed
YEAR Res'l Units @ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag) Market Value (2-yr lag) Sq. Ft.* Rooms @ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag) (2-yr lag) Value
2017 0 0 0 0 0 $0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 000000 00 $0
2020 000013,990,000 0 0 0000 0
2021 660 148,462,999 0 5,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 120 2,969,260 207,718,732 0 5,200,000 4,057,100 0 0000 4,057,100
2023 120 265,130,933 10,689,336 5,200,000 1,508,000 0 0 0 0 12,197,336
2024 120 5,302,619 328,993,998 14,955,749 14,900,000 1,508,000 0 0000 16,463,749
2025 420 500,148,162 19,089,427 5,100,000 1,508,000 0 0 0 0 20,597,427
2026 120 10,002,963 569,905,754 23,687,568 1,900,000 4,321,000 0 0000 28,008,568
2027 40 592,612,513 36,010,668 0 1,479,000 0 0 0 0 37,489,668
2028 0 35,556,751 628,169,263 41,033,214 0 551,000 0 0000 41,584,214
2029 0 628,169,263 42,668,101 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,668,101
2030 0 37,690,156 665,859,419 45,228,187 0 0 0 0000 45,228,187
2031 0 665,859,419 45,228,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,228,187
2032 0 39,951,565 705,810,984 47,941,878 0 0 0 0000 47,941,878
2033 0 705,810,984 47,941,878 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,941,878
2034 0 42,348,659 748,159,643 50,818,391 0 0 0 0000 50,818,391
2035 0 748,159,643 50,818,391 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,818,391
2036 0 44,889,579 793,049,222 53,867,494 0 0 0 0000 53,867,494
2037 0 793,049,222 53,867,494 0 0 0 0 0 0 53,867,494
2038 47,582,953 840,632,175 57,099,544 0 0 0 0 0 57,099,544
2039 840,632,175 57,099,544 0 0 0 0 57,099,544
2040 50,437,931 891,070,106 60,525,517 0 0 0 0 0 60,525,517
2041 891,070,106 60,525,517 0 0 0 0 60,525,517
2042 53,464,206 944,534,312 64,157,048 0 0 0 0 0 64,157,048
2043 944,534,312 64,157,048 0 0 0 0 64,157,048
2044 56,672,059 1,001,206,371 68,006,470 0 0 0 0 0 68,006,470
2045 1,001,206,371 68,006,470 0 0 0 0 68,006,470
2046 60,072,382 1,061,278,753 72,086,859 0 0 0 0 0 72,086,859
2047 1,061,278,753 72,086,859 0 0 0 0 72,086,859
2048 63,676,725 1,124,955,479 76,412,070 0 0 0 0 0 76,412,070
2049 1,124,955,479 76,412,070 0 0 0 0 76,412,070
2050 67,497,329 1,192,452,807 80,996,794 0 0 0 0 0 80,996,794
2051 1,192,452,807 80,996,794 0 0 0 0 80,996,794
2052 71,547,168 1,263,999,976 85,856,602 0 0 0 0 0 85,856,602
2053 1,263,999,976 85,856,602 0 0 0 0 85,856,602
2054 75,839,999 1,339,839,974 91,007,998 0 0 0 0 0 91,007,998
2055 1,339,839,974 91,007,998 0 0 0 0 91,007,998
2056 80,390,398 1,420,230,373 96,468,478 0 0 0 0 0 96,468,478
2057 1,420,230,373 96,468,478 0 0 0 0 96,468,478
2058 85,213,822 1,505,444,195 102,256,587 0 0 0 0 0 102,256,587
2059 1,505,444,195 102,256,587 0 0 0 0 102,256,587
2060 90,326,652 1,595,770,847 108,391,982 0 0 0 0 0 108,391,982
2061 1,595,770,847 108,391,982 0 0 0 0 108,391,982
2062 95,746,251 1,691,517,097 114,895,501 0 0 0 0 0 114,895,501
______ ____________________ __________ __________
1,600 1,117,179,427 00 0
[*] Not incl. Hotels; presented in Rooms [3] Estimated, tbd.
12/21/2018 B MMD Fin Plan 18 R AV Summary Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
3
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential)
Development Summary
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 12/21/18)
Residential Development
Product Type
Apts (Affordable) Apts (Market Rate) Cluster SFD - Alley Load SFD - Traditional TH Condos
Base $ ('18)$110,000 $205,000 $350,000 $450,000 $500,000 $475,000 $300,000
Res'l Totals
2017 - - - - - - - -
2018 - - - - - - - -
2019 - - - - - - - -
2020 - - - - - - - -
2021 240 300 40 40 40 - - 660
2022 - - 40 40 40 - - 120
2023 - - 40 40 40 - - 120
2024 - - 40 40 40 - - 120
2025 - - 40 40 40 40 260 420
2026 - - 40 40 - 40 - 120
2027 - - - - - 40 - 40
2028 - - - - - - - -
2029 - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - -
2031 - - - - - - - -
2032 - - - - - - - -
2033 - - - - - - - -
2034 - - - - - - - -
2035 - - - - - - - -
2036 - - - - - - - -
2037 - - - - - - - -
240 300 240 240 200 120 260 1,600
MV @ Full Buildout $26,400,000 $61,500,000 $84,000,000 $108,000,000 $100,000,000 $57,000,000 $78,000,000 $514,900,000
(base prices;un-infl.)
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
12/21/2018 B MMD Fin Plan 18 R Dev Summary Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
4
PAINTED PRAIRIE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Commercial)
1 Assessed Value Summary
2050
2042
< < < < < < < < Residential > > > > > > > > < Platted/Developed Lots > < < < < < < < < Commercial > > > > > > > >
#######Mkt Value As'ed Value As'ed Value Mkt Value As'ed Value
Biennial @ 7.20%@ 29.00%Biennial @ 29.00%Total
Total Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Cumulative of Market Total Comm'l Total Hotel Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Assessed
YEAR Res'l Units @ 6.0%Market Value (2-yr lag) Market Value (2-yr lag)Sq. Ft.* Rooms @ 6.0%Market Value (2-yr lag)Value
2017 0 0 0 0 0 $0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 000000 00$0
2020 000000000000
2021 0 000000 000
2022 000000000000
2023 0 000000 000
2024 00002,395,800 0 0 00000
2025 0 0 0 4,575,978 0 108,900 0 27,520,211 0 0
2026 00000694,782 207,999 0 550,404 81,685,491 0 694,782
2027 0 0 0 0 1,327,034 0 0 81,685,491 7,980,861 9,307,895
2028 000000004,901,129 86,586,620 23,688,792 23,688,792
2029 0 000000 86,586,620 23,688,792 23,688,792
2030 000000005,195,197 91,781,818 25,110,120 25,110,120
2031 0 000000 91,781,818 25,110,120 25,110,120
2032 000000005,506,909 97,288,727 26,616,727 26,616,727
2033 0 000000 97,288,727 26,616,727 26,616,727
2034 000000005,837,324 103,126,050 28,213,731 28,213,731
2035 0 000000 103,126,050 28,213,731 28,213,731
2036 000000006,187,563 109,313,613 29,906,555 29,906,555
2037 0 000000 109,313,613 29,906,555 29,906,555
2038 00000 6,558,817 115,872,430 31,700,948 31,700,948
2039 0000 115,872,430 31,700,948 31,700,948
2040 00000 6,952,346 122,824,776 33,603,005 33,603,005
2041 0000 122,824,776 33,603,005 33,603,005
2042 00000 7,369,487 130,194,262 35,619,185 35,619,185
2043 0000 130,194,262 35,619,185 35,619,185
2044 00000 7,811,656 138,005,918 37,756,336 37,756,336
2045 0000 138,005,918 37,756,336 37,756,336
2046 00000 8,280,355 146,286,273 40,021,716 40,021,716
2047 0000 146,286,273 40,021,716 40,021,716
2048 00000 8,777,176 155,063,450 42,423,019 42,423,019
2049 0000 155,063,450 42,423,019 42,423,019
2050 00000 9,303,807 164,367,257 44,968,400 44,968,400
2051 0000 164,367,257 44,968,400 44,968,400
2052 00000 9,862,035 174,229,292 47,666,504 47,666,504
2053 0000 174,229,292 47,666,504 47,666,504
2054 00000 10,453,758 184,683,050 50,526,495 50,526,495
2055 0000 184,683,050 50,526,495 50,526,495
2056 00000 11,080,983 195,764,033 53,558,084 53,558,084
2057 0000 195,764,033 53,558,084 53,558,084
2058 00000 11,745,842 207,509,875 56,771,569 56,771,569
2059 0000 207,509,875 56,771,569 56,771,569
2060 00000 12,450,592 219,960,467 60,177,864 60,177,864
2061 0000 219,960,467 60,177,864 60,177,864
2062 00000 13,197,628 233,158,095 63,788,535 63,788,535
______ ____________________ __________ __________
00 316,899 0 152,023,008
[*] Not incl. Hotels; presented in Rooms
12/21/2018 B MMD Fin Plan 18 C AV Summary Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
5
PAINTED PRAIRIE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Commercial)
Development Summary
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 12/17/18)
Commercial Development
Product Type
Comm'l ('C) Comm'l (D1) Comm'l (D2)
Base $ ('18)$220/sf $220/sf $220/sf
Sales $ ('18)$0/sf $0/sf $0/sf
Taxable %100% 100% 100%
Comm'l SF Total* Hotel Rooms
2017 - - - - -
2018 - - - - -
2019 - - - - -
2020 - - - - -
2021 - - - - -
2022 - - - - -
2023 - - - - -
2024 - - - - -
2025 - 108,900 - 108,900 -
2026 133,947 - 74,052 207,999 -
2027 - - - - -
2028 - - - - -
2029 - - - - -
2030 - - - - -
2031 - - - - -
2032 - - - - -
2033 - - - - -
2034 - - - - -
2035 - - - - -
2036 - - - - -
2037 - - - - -
133,947 108,900 74,052 316,899 -
MV @ Full Buildout $29,468,340 $23,958,000 $16,291,440 $69,717,780
(base prices;un-infl.)
[*] Not incl. Hotels; presented in Rooms
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
12/21/2018 B MMD Fin Plan 18 C Dev Summary Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
6
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2032
Delivery Date 12/01/2032
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 64,595,000.00
Other Sources of Funds:
Funds on Hand* 255,000.00
64,850,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 21,561,708.33
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit* 42,550,000.00
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 215,316.67
Cost of Issuance:
Other Cost of Issuance 200,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Underwriter's Discount 322,975.00
64,850,000.00
Note: [*] Estimated balances (tbd)
7
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2032
Delivery Date 12/01/2032
First Coupon 06/01/2033
Last Maturity 12/01/2062
Arbitrage Yield 4.000000%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.035175%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.000000%
All-In TIC 4.057081%
Average Coupon 4.000000%
Average Life (years)22.213
Weighted Average Maturity (years)22.213
Duration of Issue (years)14.523
Par Amount 64,595,000.00
Bond Proceeds 64,595,000.00
Total Interest 57,395,200.00
Net Interest 57,718,175.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 1,434,880,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 1,434,880,000.00
Total Debt Service 121,990,200.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 6,094,400.00
Average Annual Debt Service 4,066,340.00
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 2062 64,595,000.00 100.000 4.000% 22.213 02/17/2055 112,395.30
64,595,000.00 22.213 112,395.30
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 64,595,000.00 64,595,000.00 64,595,000.00
+ Accrued Interest
+ Premium (Discount)
- Underwriter's Discount -322,975.00 -322,975.00
- Cost of Issuance Expense -200,000.00
- Other Amounts
Target Value 64,272,025.00 64,072,025.00 64,595,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2032 12/01/2032 12/01/2032
Yield 4.035175%4.057081%4.000000%
8
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
BOND DEBT SERVICE
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l 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
06/01/2033 1,291,900 1,291,900
12/01/2033 1,291,900 1,291,900 2,583,800
06/01/2034 1,291,900 1,291,900
12/01/2034 110,000 4.000% 1,291,900 1,401,900 2,693,800
06/01/2035 1,289,700 1,289,700
12/01/2035 115,000 4.000% 1,289,700 1,404,700 2,694,400
06/01/2036 1,287,400 1,287,400
12/01/2036 280,000 4.000% 1,287,400 1,567,400 2,854,800
06/01/2037 1,281,800 1,281,800
12/01/2037 295,000 4.000% 1,281,800 1,576,800 2,858,600
06/01/2038 1,275,900 1,275,900
12/01/2038 475,000 4.000% 1,275,900 1,750,900 3,026,800
06/01/2039 1,266,400 1,266,400
12/01/2039 495,000 4.000% 1,266,400 1,761,400 3,027,800
06/01/2040 1,256,500 1,256,500
12/01/2040 695,000 4.000% 1,256,500 1,951,500 3,208,000
06/01/2041 1,242,600 1,242,600
12/01/2041 725,000 4.000% 1,242,600 1,967,600 3,210,200
06/01/2042 1,228,100 1,228,100
12/01/2042 945,000 4.000% 1,228,100 2,173,100 3,401,200
06/01/2043 1,209,200 1,209,200
12/01/2043 985,000 4.000% 1,209,200 2,194,200 3,403,400
06/01/2044 1,189,500 1,189,500
12/01/2044 1,230,000 4.000% 1,189,500 2,419,500 3,609,000
06/01/2045 1,164,900 1,164,900
12/01/2045 1,280,000 4.000% 1,164,900 2,444,900 3,609,800
06/01/2046 1,139,300 1,139,300
12/01/2046 1,545,000 4.000% 1,139,300 2,684,300 3,823,600
06/01/2047 1,108,400 1,108,400
12/01/2047 1,610,000 4.000% 1,108,400 2,718,400 3,826,800
06/01/2048 1,076,200 1,076,200
12/01/2048 1,900,000 4.000% 1,076,200 2,976,200 4,052,400
06/01/2049 1,038,200 1,038,200
12/01/2049 1,980,000 4.000% 1,038,200 3,018,200 4,056,400
06/01/2050 998,600 998,600
12/01/2050 2,300,000 4.000% 998,600 3,298,600 4,297,200
06/01/2051 952,600 952,600
12/01/2051 2,390,000 4.000% 952,600 3,342,600 4,295,200
06/01/2052 904,800 904,800
12/01/2052 2,745,000 4.000% 904,800 3,649,800 4,554,600
06/01/2053 849,900 849,900
12/01/2053 2,855,000 4.000% 849,900 3,704,900 4,554,800
06/01/2054 792,800 792,800
12/01/2054 3,245,000 4.000% 792,800 4,037,800 4,830,600
06/01/2055 727,900 727,900
12/01/2055 3,375,000 4.000% 727,900 4,102,900 4,830,800
06/01/2056 660,400 660,400
12/01/2056 3,800,000 4.000% 660,400 4,460,400 5,120,800
06/01/2057 584,400 584,400
12/01/2057 3,950,000 4.000% 584,400 4,534,400 5,118,800
06/01/2058 505,400 505,400
12/01/2058 4,415,000 4.000% 505,400 4,920,400 5,425,800
06/01/2059 417,100 417,100
12/01/2059 4,590,000 4.000% 417,100 5,007,100 5,424,200
06/01/2060 325,300 325,300
12/01/2060 5,100,000 4.000% 325,300 5,425,300 5,750,600
06/01/2061 223,300 223,300
12/01/2061 5,305,000 4.000% 223,300 5,528,300 5,751,600
06/01/2062 117,200 117,200
12/01/2062 5,860,000 4.000% 117,200 5,977,200 6,094,400
64,595,000 57,395,200 121,990,200 121,990,200
9
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
NET DEBT SERVICE
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Period Total Capitalized Net
Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Interest Fund Debt Service
12/01/2033 2,583,800 2,583,800 215,316.67 2,368,483.33
12/01/2034 110,000 2,583,800 2,693,800 2,693,800.00
12/01/2035 115,000 2,579,400 2,694,400 2,694,400.00
12/01/2036 280,000 2,574,800 2,854,800 2,854,800.00
12/01/2037 295,000 2,563,600 2,858,600 2,858,600.00
12/01/2038 475,000 2,551,800 3,026,800 3,026,800.00
12/01/2039 495,000 2,532,800 3,027,800 3,027,800.00
12/01/2040 695,000 2,513,000 3,208,000 3,208,000.00
12/01/2041 725,000 2,485,200 3,210,200 3,210,200.00
12/01/2042 945,000 2,456,200 3,401,200 3,401,200.00
12/01/2043 985,000 2,418,400 3,403,400 3,403,400.00
12/01/2044 1,230,000 2,379,000 3,609,000 3,609,000.00
12/01/2045 1,280,000 2,329,800 3,609,800 3,609,800.00
12/01/2046 1,545,000 2,278,600 3,823,600 3,823,600.00
12/01/2047 1,610,000 2,216,800 3,826,800 3,826,800.00
12/01/2048 1,900,000 2,152,400 4,052,400 4,052,400.00
12/01/2049 1,980,000 2,076,400 4,056,400 4,056,400.00
12/01/2050 2,300,000 1,997,200 4,297,200 4,297,200.00
12/01/2051 2,390,000 1,905,200 4,295,200 4,295,200.00
12/01/2052 2,745,000 1,809,600 4,554,600 4,554,600.00
12/01/2053 2,855,000 1,699,800 4,554,800 4,554,800.00
12/01/2054 3,245,000 1,585,600 4,830,600 4,830,600.00
12/01/2055 3,375,000 1,455,800 4,830,800 4,830,800.00
12/01/2056 3,800,000 1,320,800 5,120,800 5,120,800.00
12/01/2057 3,950,000 1,168,800 5,118,800 5,118,800.00
12/01/2058 4,415,000 1,010,800 5,425,800 5,425,800.00
12/01/2059 4,590,000 834,200 5,424,200 5,424,200.00
12/01/2060 5,100,000 650,600 5,750,600 5,750,600.00
12/01/2061 5,305,000 446,600 5,751,600 5,751,600.00
12/01/2062 5,860,000 234,400 6,094,400 6,094,400.00
64,595,000 57,395,200 121,990,200 215,316.67 121,774,883.33
10
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l 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
12/21/18: (R+C) Ser 22 NR SP, 5.00%, 100x, 40.00+20.00, FG+6% BiRe:
TERM52 12/01/2033 5.000% 415,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2034 5.000% 590,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2035 5.000% 620,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2036 5.000% 810,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2037 5.000% 850,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2038 5.000% 1,065,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2039 5.000% 1,120,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2040 5.000% 1,355,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2041 5.000% 1,425,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2042 5.000% 1,690,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2043 5.000% 1,775,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2044 5.000% 2,065,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2045 5.000% 2,170,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2046 5.000% 2,495,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2047 5.000% 2,620,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2048 5.000% 2,980,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2049 5.000% 3,130,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2050 5.000% 3,530,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2051 5.000% 3,705,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
12/01/2052 5.000% 8,140,000.00 12/01/2032 100.000
42,550,000.00
11
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2032
Delivery Date 12/01/2032
12/21/18: (R+C) Ser 22 NR SP, 5.00%, 100x, 40.00+20.00, FG+6% BiRe
Period Principal
Ending Redeemed Total
12/01/2032 42,550,000.00 42,550,000.00
42,550,000.00 42,550,000.00
12
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
PRIOR BOND DEBT SERVICE
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l 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
06/01/2033 1,063,750 1,063,750
12/01/2033 415,000 5.000% 1,063,750 1,478,750 2,542,500
06/01/2034 1,053,375 1,053,375
12/01/2034 590,000 5.000% 1,053,375 1,643,375 2,696,750
06/01/2035 1,038,625 1,038,625
12/01/2035 620,000 5.000% 1,038,625 1,658,625 2,697,250
06/01/2036 1,023,125 1,023,125
12/01/2036 810,000 5.000% 1,023,125 1,833,125 2,856,250
06/01/2037 1,002,875 1,002,875
12/01/2037 850,000 5.000% 1,002,875 1,852,875 2,855,750
06/01/2038 981,625 981,625
12/01/2038 1,065,000 5.000% 981,625 2,046,625 3,028,250
06/01/2039 955,000 955,000
12/01/2039 1,120,000 5.000% 955,000 2,075,000 3,030,000
06/01/2040 927,000 927,000
12/01/2040 1,355,000 5.000% 927,000 2,282,000 3,209,000
06/01/2041 893,125 893,125
12/01/2041 1,425,000 5.000% 893,125 2,318,125 3,211,250
06/01/2042 857,500 857,500
12/01/2042 1,690,000 5.000% 857,500 2,547,500 3,405,000
06/01/2043 815,250 815,250
12/01/2043 1,775,000 5.000% 815,250 2,590,250 3,405,500
06/01/2044 770,875 770,875
12/01/2044 2,065,000 5.000% 770,875 2,835,875 3,606,750
06/01/2045 719,250 719,250
12/01/2045 2,170,000 5.000% 719,250 2,889,250 3,608,500
06/01/2046 665,000 665,000
12/01/2046 2,495,000 5.000% 665,000 3,160,000 3,825,000
06/01/2047 602,625 602,625
12/01/2047 2,620,000 5.000% 602,625 3,222,625 3,825,250
06/01/2048 537,125 537,125
12/01/2048 2,980,000 5.000% 537,125 3,517,125 4,054,250
06/01/2049 462,625 462,625
12/01/2049 3,130,000 5.000% 462,625 3,592,625 4,055,250
06/01/2050 384,375 384,375
12/01/2050 3,530,000 5.000% 384,375 3,914,375 4,298,750
06/01/2051 296,125 296,125
12/01/2051 3,705,000 5.000% 296,125 4,001,125 4,297,250
06/01/2052 203,500 203,500
12/01/2052 8,140,000 5.000% 203,500 8,343,500 8,547,000
42,550,000 30,505,500 73,055,500 73,055,500
13
Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Mulberry MD 18:BDEC2118-32IGR20B,32IGR20B)
BOND SOLUTION
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (Residential & Commercial)
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING & IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2032
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2022 + New Money
40.000 (target) Res'l Mills + 20.000 (target) Comm'l Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discsussion only ]
Period Proposed Proposed Debt Service Total Adj Revenue Unused Debt Serv
Ending Principal Debt Service Adjustments Debt Service Constraints Revenues Coverage
12/01/2033 2,583,800 -215,317 2,368,483 2,545,070 176,587 107.45569%
12/01/2034 110,000 2,693,800 2,693,800 2,697,774 3,974 100.14753%
12/01/2035 115,000 2,694,400 2,694,400 2,697,774 3,374 100.12523%
12/01/2036 280,000 2,854,800 2,854,800 2,859,641 4,841 100.16956%
12/01/2037 295,000 2,858,600 2,858,600 2,859,641 1,041 100.03641%
12/01/2038 475,000 3,026,800 3,026,800 3,031,219 4,419 100.14600%
12/01/2039 495,000 3,027,800 3,027,800 3,031,219 3,419 100.11292%
12/01/2040 695,000 3,208,000 3,208,000 3,213,092 5,092 100.15874%
12/01/2041 725,000 3,210,200 3,210,200 3,213,092 2,892 100.09010%
12/01/2042 945,000 3,401,200 3,401,200 3,405,878 4,678 100.13753%
12/01/2043 985,000 3,403,400 3,403,400 3,405,878 2,478 100.07280%
12/01/2044 1,230,000 3,609,000 3,609,000 3,610,231 1,231 100.03410%
12/01/2045 1,280,000 3,609,800 3,609,800 3,610,231 431 100.01193%
12/01/2046 1,545,000 3,823,600 3,823,600 3,826,844 3,244 100.08485%
12/01/2047 1,610,000 3,826,800 3,826,800 3,826,844 44 100.00116%
12/01/2048 1,900,000 4,052,400 4,052,400 4,056,455 4,055 100.10006%
12/01/2049 1,980,000 4,056,400 4,056,400 4,056,455 55 100.00136%
12/01/2050 2,300,000 4,297,200 4,297,200 4,299,842 2,642 100.06149%
12/01/2051 2,390,000 4,295,200 4,295,200 4,299,842 4,642 100.10808%
12/01/2052 2,745,000 4,554,600 4,554,600 4,557,833 3,233 100.07098%
12/01/2053 2,855,000 4,554,800 4,554,800 4,557,833 3,033 100.06659%
12/01/2054 3,245,000 4,830,600 4,830,600 4,831,303 703 100.01455%
12/01/2055 3,375,000 4,830,800 4,830,800 4,831,303 503 100.01041%
12/01/2056 3,800,000 5,120,800 5,120,800 5,121,181 381 100.00744%
12/01/2057 3,950,000 5,118,800 5,118,800 5,121,181 2,381 100.04651%
12/01/2058 4,415,000 5,425,800 5,425,800 5,428,452 2,652 100.04887%
12/01/2059 4,590,000 5,424,200 5,424,200 5,428,452 4,252 100.07839%
12/01/2060 5,100,000 5,750,600 5,750,600 5,754,159 3,559 100.06189%
12/01/2061 5,305,000 5,751,600 5,751,600 5,754,159 2,559 100.04449%
12/01/2062 5,860,000 6,094,400 6,094,400 6,099,408 5,008 100.08218%
64,595,000 121,990,200 -215,317 121,774,883 122,032,286 257,403
14
49
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT I
PUBLIC BENEFITS
Total Project Units 1608
Environmental Sustainability
GHG Reduction Total Benefit ($) Benefit per Unit Notes
1 800 kW Solar Power $1,969,400 $8,600 Total 800kW Generated - 3.5kW system on 229 Homes
1 Non-Potable Irrigation System $4,642,190 $2,887 See Cost Estimate
1
1 Pollinator Corridors $160,800 $100 Enhanced planting plans to encourage Pollinator development
1 See GHG Reduction
$6,772,390 $11,587
Critical Public Infrastructure
Total Benefit ($) Benefit per Unit Notes
1 Rail Crossing $500,000 $311
1 Vine & Timberline Contributions* $250,000 $155 Estimated Contribution
2 Greenfields RAB $524,453 $326
$1,274,453 $793
Smarth Growth Management
Increase Density Total Benefit ($) Benefit per Unit Notes
1 Alley Load Homes $4,002,023 $6,670.04 40% of Units - 600 Units
2 Added Utility Services/Raw water Dedication^ $18,020,145 $11,207 Additional Sewer and Water Service - 825 Unit Density Bonus
1 Enhanced crossings $75,000 $47 6 Crossings Total @ $12,500 ea.
1
1 Neighborhood Parks $3,270,672 $2,034 Pocket Parks / Neighborhood Parks
2 Swimming Pool $3,000,000 $1,866
3 Commercial Center Promenade $3,000,000 $1,866
1 Project is designed as Mixed-use Difficult to Quant.
$31,367,840 $23,689
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing Total Benefit ($) Benefit per Unit Notes
1 10% Affordable housing target $10,458,500 $6,500 $65K Subsiby for 10% of Units at 80% AMI
2 Water Savings for Non-Potable Irrigation System $21,671,479 $13,477 Savings on Raw water not required to be purchased to satisfy Project
1
1 Mulberry Frontage Improvements $500,000 $311 Landscaping Improvements on Frontage
2 Monument / Gateway Signage $1,750,000 $1,088 Land (1.77 Ac @ $15/Ft.) plus Signage Cost
3 Mulberry Intersection / Median Improvements $300,000 $187
1 Catalyze cooridor Redevelopment Difficult to Quant.
2 New Employment / Sales Tax Generation Difficult to Quant.
$34,679,979 $21,563
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS $74,094,662 $57,631
Footnotes
^.3/AF per Unit - 825 Unit Density Bonus over LMN - $57K/AF for Water
*Estimated Contribution
Mixed - Use
TOTAL Smarth Growth Management
Mulberry Metro District Public Benefit Evaluation
TOTAL Environmental Sustainability Benefit
On-Ste
Off-Site
TOTAL Critical Public Infrastructure Benefit
DISCLAIMER: The above represents Preliminary estimates designed to provide an illustravtive representation for the value of public benefit . This illustration is non-binding pending execution of a
Development Agreement
Non-Basic Improvements
Non-Basic Improvements
Non-Basic Improvements
Non-Basic Improvements
Water and Energy Conservation
Multi-modal Transportation
Enhanced Resiliency
Increased Renewalable Capacity
Workforce Housing
Infill & Redevelopment
Economic Health
TOTAL Strategic Priorities Benefit
Walkability & Pedestrian Infrastructure
Availability of Transit
Public Space
HARTFORD DEVELOPMENT
MULBERRY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
PUBLIC BENEFITS NARRATIVE
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for the
Fort Collins Planning Department
2.19.2019
2
THE PROJECT
The Mulberry Corridor (“the Corridor”) is quickly becoming
the primary gateway to Fort Collins – Old Town, new hotels,
breweries, Woodward, the Poudre River Whitewater Park,
Poudre Canyon access, etc. This gateway does not represent
our City well. While enclaving the Corridor represents
significant progress, the Corridor needs a project to set a
high development standard and catalyze redevelopment. On
the last remaining large greenfield development site on the
Corridor, Mulberry (the Community) represents the perfect
opportunity to do just that. A Metropolitan District will provide
the financing mechanism to accomplish this higher standard of
development and accelerate redevelopment of the Corridor.
Our City is in desperate need of affordable and attainable
housing. Hartford has entitled, developed and built 1,000+
homes at affordable and attainable price points in northeast
Fort Collins – Dry Creek, TimberVine, Mosaic – since 2011.
Hartford’s ability to maintain these price points and deliver
affordable or attainable homes under the historical model is
no longer possible due to rising water, land, infrastructure,
labor and material costs. In order to provide this much needed
housing Mulberry will use Metropolitan District funds to offsets
costs of innovating on water sources and uses, community
and home designs, construction techniques, and public/private
partnerships, to deliver a minimum of 160 affordable, and
1,440 attainable units.
Mulberry’s vision is to deliver on these critical City objectives
and with Metropolitan District financing tools, will:
1) Catalyze redevelopment of the Corridor; and
2) Create affordable housing units
3) Create attainable housing units to support the
workforce.
In addition to these top priorities, Metropolitan District
Financing will support the City’s objectives to:
3) Employ high quality and Smart Growth practices;
4) Incorporate Environmental Sustainability through
energy conservation, water conservation, and enhanced
community resiliency; and
5) Develop critical on-site and off-site public
infrastructure.
This mixed-use community will provide a variety of
opportunities for shopping, working, living, and playing,
including:
• A neighborhood town center located between the
Corridor and the residential portions of Mulberry, with a
central pedestrian-oriented market street acting as the
continuation of the central north-south greenway running
through the community; and including:
• Approximately 20-30 acres of retail, commercial,
office uses
• Up to +/- 160,000 SF of retail and commercial uses,
including the potential of a neighborhood-scaled
grocery store up to 50,000 SF
• Up to +/- 80,000 SF of office uses integrated into the
market street
• 1,600 or more residences to include single-family
detached, single-family attached, and multi-family living
options, of which a minimum of 10% will be designated as
affordable;
• Significant open space, including a range of features from
amenitized parks to preservation of high-value natural
areas; and
• An extensive trail corridor and pedestrian network,
providing both internal community connectivity and
walkability, as well as links to the surrounding Fort Collins
community.
3
1. CATALYZE THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR
MULBERRY STREET FRONTAGE, INTERSECTION AND
MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The Mulberry project would like to make improvements beyond
its boundaries to help establish the appropriate standard
for the Corridor redevelopment. Specifically, Mulberry will
contribute to the Frontage Road, the HWY 14 Median and the
Intersection of HWY 14 and Greenfields improvements. With
the appropriate infrastructure and landscaping improvements,
Mulberry can be a catalyst and provide an appropriate
entrance to our City.
Quantitative Benefit: Improvement Costs - $800,000
Qualitative Benefit: Establishing an implicit standard for
redevelopment of the Corridor; catalyzing investment in and
redevelopment of the Corridor.
Metropolitan District Role: Design, construction and
financing of all infrastructure associated with the frontage
area improvements adjacent to the Mulberry community,
including roadway, utility, drainage/grading, landscape,
identity and signage and other related improvements along
this corridor.
MULBERRY COMMUNITY GATEWAY
Per the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, this property is
uniquely positioned to provide a gateway to Fort Collins
from I-25. Two small parcels have been created between
the realigned frontage road and Mulberry Road as a part of
the ongoing County-led improvements, the westernmost of
which is located within the prop boundaries of the proposed
Mulberry community. Despite its ideal situation for a profitable
convenience store or drive-thru site, Mulberry would rather
see this site developed for an iconic City monument and
community entry feature
• This entry feature will reinforce the role of this property as
a gateway to the City of Fort Collins.
• This welcoming monument, were it to be supported by the
City, would be constructed and maintained by the Mulberry
Metropolitan Districts.
Quantitative Public Benefit: Foregone Land Value -
$1.25M; Entry Feature - $500,000
Qualitative Public Benefit: Establishing an iconic gateway
to the Mulberry Community, as well as a Fort Collins as a
whole
Metropolitan District Role: Ownership of monument land,
design, construction, maintenance and financing of gateway
features/improvements.
PUBLIC BENEFITS
4
DESIGN STANDARDS.
Mulberry provides an opportunity to set a high standard of
design for the redevelopment of the corridor including
• Infrastructure design through new pedestrian, vehicular,
and landscape improvements
• Establishment of an architectural character for this portion
of the city
• Develop a signature mixed-use New Urbanist community
which will also help catalyze investment in this area.
Quantitative Public Benefit: $0M
Qualitative Public Benefit: Establishing an implicit standard
for redevelopment of the Corridor; catalyzing investment in
and redevelopment of the Corridor.
Metropolitan District Role: Infrastructure reimbursements
allow for higher quality design.
ECONOMIC HEALTH OUTCOMES
Mulberry will provide a range of economic benefits to the
Corridor, as it will
• Help retain existing businesses by filling the need for an
appropriate gateway to the northern portions of the city.
• Create an attractive, attainable, affordable, and diverse
place to live, work, and play, through innovative site
planning, construction methods, and overall design
• Provide employment opportunity as well as additional tax
revenues to the City through retail, commercial, and office
uses within the mixed-use community center
• Attract a dynamic workforce with its healthy balance of
natural and urban environments
Quantitative Public Benefit: $0
Qualitative Public Benefit: New Employment; Sales Tax
Generation
Metropolitan District Role: Financing and District
reimbursements make the project economically feasible,
delivering high priority retail, employment and attainable
housing to the Corridor.
5
A variety of opportunities and potential delivery methods exist
to achieve the above guidelines, including:
• Qualified Census Tract – Mulberry is located in a
Qualified Census Tract, creating access to HUD financing
for affordable multi-family developers and builders. If
infrastructure costs can be offset by a Metropolitan
District, experienced, affordable housing developers have
expressed interest in the site
• Opportunity Zone – Mulberry is located in an Opportunity
Zone, qualifying long-term investments for new tax
incentives; this further provides viability for affordable,
multi-family developers
• Partnership with Habitat for Humanity – Hartford
Homes and the Mulberry community have been working
on a partnership with Habitat for Humanity to build the
affordable, for-sale residential units
• Land Trust Partnership - Hartford Homes and the
Mulberry community have been in early discussions with
several Land Trusts
• Partnership with the City of Fort Collins – Mulberry
would like to explore partnership opportunities with the
City - Land Bank or other similar programs
• Partnership with Major Employer(s) – Mulberry is
exploring co-investment programs with multiple employers
to provide workforce housing
• Builder/Developer Model – As Developer and Builder,
Hartford Homes has the ability to fully deliver or subsidize
costs, where necessary, to ensure delivery of the
affordable housing units
Quantitative Public Benefits: $65K per unit subsidy -
$10.5M
Qualitative Public Benefits: Provide for sale and for
rent affordable housing and create a more integrated and
diverse community.
Metropolitan District Role: Lower cost of infrastructure
(through District reimbursements), enabling creation of
more affordable units.
2. CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The financing and reimbursement options created by the
Metropolitan Districts will offset infrastructure costs during
development and enable the Mulberry project to deliver a
minimum of 160 residential units, or 10% of the total project,
at 80% AMI or lower. These units will be delivered under the
following guidelines:
• For Sale: A minimum of 40 units (2.5%) will be for sale
• For Rent: Approximately 120 units (7.5%) are anticipated
to be for rent
• Integrated / Dispersed Site: Approximately 40 units will be
built as ‘dispersed site’ units, integrating market rate units
and affordable housing units within the neighborhood. It is
anticipated that affordable units will be the same units as
market-rate units and will be integrated along a block or
product type within the community.
• Enforceability: Prior to or concurrent with preparation
of the Development Agreement, Mulberry will create
legally enforceable guarantees for affordable housing
commitments. Potential options include a contract with the
City for Land Bank, deed restriction, and reservation of
acreage.
6
3. CREATE ATTAINABLE HOUSING
In addition to the aforementioned methods to provide and
ensure affordable homes within the proposed Mulberry
community, the Mulberry Metropolitan Districts will allow for the
use of innovative land planning and construction strategies,
lowering the overall cost of housing and providing for a wide
range of market-rate attainable housing options.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
Consistent with New Urbanist principles, the single-family
attached and detached homes at Mulberry are envisioned to
have predominately alley-accessed garages, with less private
yard space, but direct access to open spaces, pedestrian
corridors and public streets. This and related design features
are a critical component to developing smaller, more attainably
priced homes, including:
• Decreasing the amount of land required per home
allows the home to be sold for a lower market price.
(land accounts for approximately 25% of the cost of new
construction)
• Mulberry anticipates a density of 8.8 units per acre versus
LMN code standard of 4 units per acre. (an increase of
about 825 units) further diluting the overall cost of land for
development.
• Locating the garage in the rear of the home, allows for the
overall lot to be narrower
• Open spaces will be integrated throughout the
neighborhood, with construction and maintenance
provided by the Mulberry Metropolitan Districts, rather
than by private homeowners.
While alleys help facilitate denser and more urban patterns of
development, they also lead to somewhat higher construction
costs. The additional paving that is required for alley-based
community design is typically passed on to the homebuyer,
through an increase in the sale price of the home. The
Metropolitan District can be used to offset this increase instead
of passing it directly to homebuyers, creating an overall more
attainable neighborhood at Mulberry.
Quantitative Public Benefit: Alley Construction Costs -
$4M; Additional Utilities - $18M
Qualitative Public Benefit: More attainably priced homes
for Fort Collins households, increased space for community
interaction.
Metropolitan District Role: Lower the direct cost of
infrastructure for homebuyers; Design, construction, and
maintenance of alleys and common open spaces.
HOME DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
Home design and construction will play a key role in keeping
construction costs lower and home prices attainable. Key
methods employed will include:
• Constructing some homes with a slab foundation, as
opposed to a full basement
• Utilizing detached, condominiumized garages
• Utilizing ready-frame construction
• Building homes in 4’ increments only
• Reducing the number of corners in some home types
• Avoiding the use of steel
• Developing fully sprinkled homes with 2’ side setbacks
• Including roof top outdoor spaces and/or 3-stories, and
other strategies, as appropriate
Quantitative Public Benefit: $0
Qualitative Public Benefit: More attainably priced homes
for Fort Collins households; greater sustainability achieved
through reduced overall consumption per home.
Metropolitan District Role: Density increase allows
potential for construction methods outlined above.
7
4. EMPLOY HIGH QUALITY AND SMART
GROWTH PRACTICES
In planning the Mulberry community, special effort has been
made to ensure that the community will not only meet,
but exceed City standards, integrating best practices in
planning and design to create a high quality, environmentally
sustainable community.
As a New Urbanist community employing Traditional
Neighborhood Development principles, Mulberry proposes a
greenway system that will not only integrate nature into the
City but will activate it through numerous connections to pocket
parks, green courts, and front doors. Features include:
• A pedestrian-friendly mixed-use neighborhood center that
will function as the central node on the south end of the
community
• A central pedestrian-oriented greenway spine proposed to
run north-south through the center of the neighborhood,
flanked by a variety of housing types
• Pocket parks adjacent to the spine providing central
access to open space facilities and activation on the main
corridor
• A secondary bicycle path on the west side of Greenfields
Court to provide a more direct route for cyclists, which will
also allow the central spine to be more focused on local
pedestrian traffic
• A neighborhood pool on the east side of Greenfields Drive,
within a +/- 5-minute walk from all residential areas within
Mulberry
• An enhanced east-west greenway to connect from the
railroad crossing to Cooper Slough
Quantitative Benefit: Neighborhood Parks - $3.3M,
Swimming Pool - $3M, Commercial Center Promenade -
$3M, Enhanced crossings - $75K
Qualitative Public Benefit: Increased walkability /
connectivity, creating a better sense of community and place
in key gathering areas. Embracing Nature in the City.
Metropolitan District Role: Design, financing, construction
and maintenance of parks, commercial center promenade,
trail system and other related improvements.
NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Mulberry will provide for the construction and maintenance of
a non-potable water system for community-wide landscaping
and landscaping on individual lots. The proposed non-potable
water system for Mulberry will lead to a 45% reduction in
potable water demand. Utilizing the onsite wells for irrigation
reduces overall water dedication requirements, reducing
project costs and home costs. Simultaneously, the non-potable
system will reduce the monthly costs of homeownership.
Quantitative Benefit: Raw Water reduction - $22M,
reduction in monthly water bills
Qualitative Public Benefit: Less demand on water
treatment system; lower initial cost for homes; lower on-
going water costs than City system.
Metropolitan District Role: Design, financing, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the non-potable system.
8
5. INCORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH ENERGY
CONSERVATION, WATER CONSERVATION,
AND ENHANCED COMMUNITY RESILIENCY
Fort Collins Sustainability Goals are promoted throughout
the community with environmentally friendly design.
WATER CONSERVATION
An irrigation system, designed congruently with a water
conserving landscape design, is not a requirement of the City;
however, to achieve a water conserving landscape both the
overall planting plan and irrigation system will be designed
congruently. Once this is designed and installed, true water
savings is primarily achieved through the proper operation of a
strategically designed community wide irrigation system.
• Xeric landscaping and use of non-potable irrigation will
conserve water
• Plants with similar water needs will be grouped together
and a properly designed irrigation system will correspond
with this planting plan.
• The vision for the landscape character includes water-
wise landscaping throughout, which can reduce further
demand for irrigation water by about 20% compared to
conventional landscaping.
• Utilizing onsite wells reduces need for excess water rights
to be pulled from agricultural (“Buy and Dry”) thereby
preserving more water in its current state/use.
• Yard areas on some residential lots will be minimized to
reduce the amount of traditionally irrigated area.
Quantitative Public Benefits: Non-potable System Cost -
$4.6M
Qualitative Public Benefits: Xeric, Waterwise Landscaping;
preservation of agricultural water rights
Role of Metropolitan District: Design, financing,
construction and maintenance of common areas where
water conserving landscape improvements occur.
Holistic design, construction and maintenance of overall
infrastructure improvements and non-potable system.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
A commitment to 800 kW of solar capacity generated within
and distributed throughout Mulberry will further promote
resource conservation and renewable energy use.
Quantitative Public Benefits: Solar - $2M
Qualitative Public Benefits: Addresses City’s goals to
achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, with 2% from local
installed distribution generation.
Metropolitan District Role: Enforce delivery of system.
ENHANCED RESILIENCY
Cooper Slough Improvements, Lake Canal Improvements,
Community Resiliency through Flood Plain Reduction,
Pollinator Corridors
• Improvements to the Cooper Slough will reduce runoff
and lower peak flows through upstream planting and
mitigation.
• Improvements to Lake Canal will help to bring it out of the
current flood plain. This will reduce financial, health and
safety risks for the future while supporting development of
the commercial portion of the project.
• Landscape architecture will be designed to support the
flight distances and migration patterns of applicable
pollinators and will increase the biodiversity of the area.
Quantitative Benefit: Pollinator Corridors - $160,000
Qualitative Public Benefit: Design and engineering of the
full master planned community of Mulberry will achieve an
integrated and complete solution for these improvements,
likely beyond minimum standards.
Metropolitan District Role: Design, construction and
maintenance of Cooper Slough, Lake Canal and other
associated common open space area improvements.
9
6. DEVELOP CRITICAL ON-SITE AND OFF-
SITE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
DEVELOPING CRITICAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
To develop the proposed new community, significant
infrastructure elements are required, including the extension
of Greenfields Court from Mulberry Street north to Vine Drive.
This roadway extension is described in the East Mulberry
Corridor Plan and is a critical component of the City’s Master
Streets Plan, and it will:
• Provide a critical connection to the Mulberry and I-25
interchange for residents and businesses in northern Fort
Collins.
• Relieve pressure on failing or nearly failing intersections
(Timberline & Vine and Lemay & Vine).
• Require a railroad crossing for an existing railroad right-of-
way that currently serves industrial tenants along I-25, to
the east of the site.
Quantitative Benefit: Rail Crossing - $500,000, Vine &
Timberline Contribution - $250,000, Greenfields RAB -
$524,453
Qualitative Public Benefit: Better means for transportation
for Fort Collins residents, improved accessibility to
surrounding area.
Metropolitan District Role: Design, construction and
maintenance of significant roadway infrastructure associated
with the Mulberry community.
51
DN 3423281.1
EXHIBIT J
DISCLOSURE NOTICE
M EMORANDUM
To: Josh Birks and Jensen Morgan
Economic Health & Redevelopment, City of Fort Collins
From: Dan Guimond and Elliot Kilham
Economic & Planning Systems
Subject: Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
EPS #193012
Date: February 11, 2019
This memorandum summarizes Economic & Planning System’s
(EPS) evaluation of the Financial Plan section of the Consolidated
Service Plan (Service Plan) for the Mulberry Metropolitan Service
District (District). The City is required to approve the Service
Plan for a Title 32 Metropolitan District prior to it being submitted
for a vote by the electorate of the district. EPS’s third-party
evaluation includes a review of the market and financial
assumptions underlying the application as well as the feasibility
of the District’s Financial Plan, including public revenue and bond
proceed forecasts. The evaluation also reviews the proposal
against the City’s metro district public benefit policy requirements.
Development Program
Mulberry is a proposed 226-acre mixed-use community in North
Fort Collins located between E. Vine Drive to the north, Colorado
Hwy 14 (Mulberry) to the south, S. Timberline Road to the west,
and I-25 frontage roads to the east, near the intersection of
Frontage Road N. and Dawn Avenue, as shown Figure 1 at the
end of this section.
The proposed project contains a mix of residential and
commercial uses; the residential component includes both single
and multifamily homes as well as for-sale and rental product,
and the commercial component includes community serving
retail and office uses. The project is projected to be completed
over the next nine years; at which time, it is forecasted to
include 1,600 housing units and approximately 316,000 square
feet of commercial space.
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 2
The Developer provided a preliminary development program to D.A. Davidson, the
District’s bond underwriter, as shown in Table 1. This preliminary program includes:
• 240 cluster homes with a projected market value of $350,000. Cluster or patio homes
are higher density, attached single family houses.
• 240 single family – alley loaded homes with a projected market value of $450,000.
These homes will be higher density than a traditional single family home with garages
that are accessed through an alley, allowing for smaller lots.
• 240 single family – traditional homes with a projected market value of $500,000.
• 120 townhomes with a projected market value of $475,000.
• 260 condominiums with a projected market value of $300,000.
• 316,000 square feet of commercial space with a projected market value of $220 per
square foot. The D.A. Davidson projections do not distinguish between the type of
commercial space, but the District proposal suggests that 86,000 square feet will be
office and 230,000 square feet will be community serving retail.
Table 1. Proposed Mulberry Development Program and Market Values
Description Amount % Total Market Value
2018 $
Residential
For-Sale Units $/Unit
Cluster Homes 240 15%$350,000
Single Family - Alley Loaded 240 15%$450,000
Single Family - Traditional 200 13%$500,000
Townhomes 120 8%$475,000
Condos 260 16%$300,000
Subtotal/Weighted Avg.1,060 66%$402,830
Rental Units $/Unit
Market Rate 240 15%$205,000
Affordable 300 19%$110,000
Subtotal/Weighted Avg.540 34%$152,222
Total/Weighted Avg.1,600 100%$318,250
Commercial Sq. Ft.$/Sq. Ft.
Office 86,000 27%$220
Retail/Commercial 230,000 73%$220
Total/Weighted Avg.316,000 100%$220
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 3
The proposed buildout of the Mulberry development is estimated to take place over a
9-year period from 2019 to 2027, as shown in Table 2. In total, the Developer proposes
to build an average of 229 residential units per year from 2019 to 2027. The proposed
commercial development is projected to occur in 2025 and 2026 as shown.
The project is shown with the initial development focused on 550 apartments in 2021
(240 market rate and 300 affordable). For sale housing is also planned for development
starting in 2021 with 120 units in the three single family detached categories. The
remaining 480 single family units are expected to be built the following five years (2022
to 2026). The last phase of the project is the townhomes and condominiums, and
commercial development built in 2025 to 2027 as shown.
It is important to note that this preliminary program is used as inputs into D.A. Davidson’s
estimate of bond proceeds and draft bond series offerings. As the basis for the Financial
Plan, EPS focused its market assessment on these inputs.
Table 2. Proposed Mulberry Absorption Schedule
Description Mkt. Rate Affordable Cluster SF Alley Single Town-Condos Total Commercial
Apts.Apts.Homes Loaded Family homes (Sq. Ft.)
Year
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2021 240 300 40 40 40 0 0 660 0
2022 0 0 40 40 40 0 0 120 0
2023 0 0 40 40 40 0 0 120 0
2024 0 0 40 40 40 0 0 120 0
2025 0 0 40 40 40 40 260 420 108,900
2026 0 0 40 40 0 40 0 120 207,999
2027 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 40 0
Summary
Total 240 300 240 240 200 120 260 1,600 316,899
Average [1]34 43 34 34 29 17 37 229 45,271
[1] Average between the first and last year of buildout or from 2021 to 2027
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Residential (Units)
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 4
Figure 1. Mulberry Metro District Vicinity Map Diagram
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 5
Metro District Proposal
Summary
The Service Plan proposes to form six separate metro districts. The districts will have the
ability to impose an aggregate mill levy of 50 mills, which includes a Debt Mill Levy and
an Operating Mill Levy. The Operating Mill Levy can equal up to 50 mills until the District
imposes a Debt Mill Levy, at which point the Operating Mill Levy cannot exceed 10 mills.
While District levies are capped at 50 mills, the Service Plan allows for adjustments to the
mill levies in the event that there are changes to the method of calculating assessed
value or any other changes impacting the revenue generating capabilities of the District.
In such cases, the District may increase or decrease mill levies to ensure that actual tax
revenues generated are not diminished. This ability helps to further guarantee future
revenue streams and reduce the risk for bond holders.
The Debt Mill Levy is expected to be used to finance public improvements listed in Exhibit
F of the Service Plan. The financial projections are based on a debt mill levy of 40 mills
for residential and 20 mills for commercial districts. In total, the Developer anticipates
issuing approximately $64 million in debt to fund a portion of these public improvement
costs. The Developer’s engineering consultant estimates that the total cost of the public
improvements will be approximately $104 million.
Metro District Policy
In August 2018, the City updated its policy originally adopted in 2008 for reviewing
proposed metro district service plans. The new policy removes previous limitations for
metro district to be 90 percent commercial and not to be used to fund “basic
infrastructure improvements normally required from new development”. In their place,
the policy requires that developers deliver “extraordinary public benefits” to the City. In
addition, the new policy increased the recommended maximum mill levy for both debt
service and O&M to 50 mills—up from 40 mills in the 2008 resolution. The proposed
Mulberry maximum aggregate mill levy of 50 mills is in-line with this recommended
maximum mill levy.
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 6
Market Assessment
This section reviews market values and buildout/absorption assumptions used to estimate
the potential public financing revenues and debt capacity of the project, as described in
the proposed Financial Plan. The section is organized into the residential and commercial
land uses. The residential section, further delineates between for-sale and rental product,
and the commercial section delineates between proposed office and retail uses.
Residential
Market Values
To help determine their reasonableness, EPS compared the market value assumptions
used the in the Financial Plan’s debt capacity estimates with recent sales in Fort Collins.
In addition, EPS compared Mulberry’s proposed market values with other comparable
developments in the Fort Collins area.
For-Sale
The Developer’s proposed market values fall near the average of recent sales in the Fort
Collins market. The Fort Collins Board of Realtors (FCBR) reports that the average price
of a single family home sold in Fort Collins in 2018 was $454,527 and that the average
price of a townhome/condo was $308,946, as shown in Table 3.
• Cluster Home: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $350,000 or 23.0 percent
less than the average of recent sales. Given that cluster homes are typically smaller
and denser than a single family home, and potentially more similar to a townhome, a
market value assumption less than the current single family average in Fort Collins
but greater than the townhome/condo average seems reasonable.
• Single Family – Alley Loaded: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $450,000
or 1.0 percent less than the average of recent sales. As a result, the proposed values
are in line with market averages.
• Single Family – Traditional: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $500,000 or
10 percent higher than the average of recent sales. The market average sales price
includes both new construction sales and sales of older, existing homes. A premium
for new construction in Mulberry is to be expected. In EPS’s professional experience,
a 10 percent premium for the new construction sales is within an acceptable range.
• Townhomes: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $475,000 or 53.7 percent
higher than the average of recent townhome/condo sales. As with single family
traditional homes, new construction townhomes will trade at a premium. Moreover,
the recent average sales price includes condo sales, which may bring down the
average when looking at townhome sales alone. While perhaps higher than average,
in EPS’s professional experience, the market values are within an acceptable range.
• Condos: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $300,000 or 2.9 percent less than
the average of recent sales. As a result, the proposed values are in line with market
averages.
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 7
Table 3. Proposed Mulberry Market Values Compared to Fort Collins Average Prices
This section compares Mulberry to other recent for-sale residential projects in the North
Fort Collins market area. This comparison reveals that Mulberry’s price points for single
family homes largely overlap with the price ranges proposed in recent residential
projects, as shown Table 4 and Figure 2. At a proposed 1,600 units, however, Mulberry
would be one of the largest residential development projects in Fort Collins.
Table 4. For-Sale Residential Projects in the North Fort Collins Market
Description Cluster SF - Alley SF - Traditional Townhomes Condos
Service Plan $350,000 $450,000 $500,000 $475,000 $300,000
Average Price $454,527 $454,527 $454,527 $308,946 $308,946
Difference -$104,527 -$4,527 $45,473 $166,054 -$8,946
% Difference -23.0%-1.0%10.0%53.7%-2.9%
Source: DA Davidson; FCBR; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems
Project Status Project Start Product Units Price
Compable Projects
Single Family $350,000-$650,000
Townhomes $300,000-$430,000
Condos $230,000-$450,000
Single Family 18 $540,000-$570,000
Townhomes 37 $327,500-$360,000
Timbervine Under Construction 2017 Single Family 146 $346,000-$390,000
East Ridge Approved ---Single Family 568 $300,000-$400,000
Brownes on Howes Complete 2016 Townhomes 6 $850,000-$1,000,000
Townhomes at Library Park Under Construction 2017 Townhomes 10 $1,195,000-$1,500,000
Mulberry
Single Family [2]680 $350,000-$500,000
Townhomes 120 $475,000
Condos 260 $300,000
[1] Total housing units for all product types.
[2] Includes cluster homes, single family - alley loaded, and single family traditional.
Source: Zillow; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
450-500 [1]
Revive Under Construction 2015
Service Plan Proposed 2019
Old Town North Third Phase 2007
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 8
Figure 2. Price Range in Comparable Residential Projects and Mulberry
Rental – Market Rate
The Mulberry Financial Plan assumes that the market rate apartments in the development
will have a market value of $205,000 per unit. To benchmark this assumption, EPS
compared it to the historical five-year average sales price per unit of apartments in Fort
Collins and to the capitalized value of apartments. Capitalized value was calculated by
dividing the five-year average rent by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort
Collins market. As shown in Table 5, the five-year average sales price was approximately
$194,000 per unit or 6 percent less that the market value assumption, and the
capitalization value was $228,000 or 11 percent more than the market value assumption.
As a result of these comparison, EPS concludes that the market value used in the
Financial Plan falls within an acceptable range and is appropriate.
Table 5. Market Rate Apartment Market Value Comparison
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Old Town North Revive Timbervine East Ridge Mulberry
Price Range
Source: Zillow; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry
Weighted Average
Sales Price Capitalized Mulberry
Description Per Unit [1]Value [2]Assumption
Apartment
Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.)$193,582.00 $228,000.00 $205,000.00
% Difference [3]6%-11%0%
[1] 5-year average sales price per unit.
[3] Percent difference from the market value assumption.
Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems
[2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate.
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 9
Rental – Affordable
The development program in Table 1 shows 300 affordable apartments with no
specifications on the level of affordability. Exhibit I of the District Plan indicates 10
percent of the total 1,600 residential units or 160 units will be affordable between 60 and
120 percent of the area median income (AMI).
Table 6 compares the LIHTC maximum rates as set by CHFA for different sized units and
different AMI levels with market rate rents in Fort Collins. (The AMI of, for example, a
family of four in Larimer County is $85,100, which is high compared to many other
counties in Colorado.) At 80 percent of AMI and higher, the affordable rents are actually
higher than the current market as shown in Figure 3. Above 60 percent, the affordable
units will have a similar value to the market rate units. To provide true benefit to the
community, EPS recommends that any units designated as affordable be priced at 60
percent of AMI or lower.
Table 6. Affordable vs. Market Rate Rents
Figure 3. Affordable vs. Market Rate Rents – 1 Bedroom
Bedrooms
Description 0 2 3
Income (% AMI)LIHTC Maximum Rents
120%$1,788 $1,915 $298
100%$1,490 $1,596 $1,915
80%$1,192 $1,277 $1,532
60%$894 $957 $1,149
CoStar Market Rate Rents
5-Year Average $1,024 $1,102 $1,177
Survey $1,071 $1,178 $1,261
Source: CHFA; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
120%100%80%60%
Monthly Rent
AMI
2018 LIHTC Rents Market Rate Rents
Source: CHFA; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 10
Absorption
EPS compared the planned buildout to forecast future demand for specific housing
products. We calculated future housing demand as part of our work on the update to Fort
Collins City Plan, organizing these estimates into low density (single family homes),
middle density (2- to 20-unit buildings), and high density (20 or more unit buildings)
housing products. (More detail on EPS’s housing demand estimate is shown in Table 8 on
the following page.) Based on this comparison, EPS calculated an implied capture rate by
Mulberry to gain a perspective on the size and reasonableness of the proposed building
plan.
From 2016 to 2040, EPS estimates that there will be a demand of 570 low density units
and 700 middle and high density units per year, for a total annual average of 1,270 units.
In comparison, the Developer proposes to develop the Mulberry project at an average of
97 low density per year (cluster and single family homes) and 131 middle density units
(multifamily and townhomes) from 2019 to 2027. This development schedule implies a
capture rate of 17 percent for low density products and 52 percent for middle density units.
In total, the proposed schedule implies a 28 percent capture rate. A capture rate of 28
percent is a significant portion of the residential development market in the Fort Collins
market, and may be relatively aggressive. Overall, it is a large and ambitious
development, and its success depends on its ability to attract a large segment of the
market. The fact that the development seems to be targeting the middle of the market in
terms of prices and has a variety of housing types should help it attract a wider market
demand segment.
Ultimately, Mulberry’s ability to meet this implied capture rate will depend on the size of
the pipeline and its competitive position against other projects. There are currently a
number of proposed large-scale residential developments in North Fort Collins, including
Waterfield, Water’s Edge, and Montava that will compete with Mulberry. However, North
Fort Collins is one of the few remaining growth areas of the city, meaning that Mulberry
may have less competition from other areas of the city. The Fort Collins market is also a
very attractive area that competes regionally and even nationally. Finally, in the past,
growth may have been constrained by supply.
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 11
Table 7. Mulberry Development Implied Residential Capture Rate
Table 8. Fort Collins City Plan Future Housing Demand Estimates
Mulberry Fort Collins Mulberry
Description Average Annual Avg [3]Capture % [4]
2016-2040
Low Density [1]97 570 17%
Middle Density [2]131 254 52%
Subtotal 229 824 28%
[3] Annual average from CityPlan housing demand forecast completed by EPS.
[4] Capture % = Mulberry Average / Fort Collins Average.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Based on definitions from the CityPlan estimate, low density housing includes cluster homes and
single family homes.
[2] Based on definitions from the CityPlan estimate, middle density includes townhomes and multifamily
homes.
Description Amount % Total Amount % Total Total Ann. #Ann. %
Low Density 42,254 66%55,926 59%13,672 570 1.2%
Middle Density 14,891 23%20,998 22%6,108 254 1.4%
High Density 6,590 10%17,296 18%10,706 446 4.1%
Total 63,735 100%94,220 100%30,485 1,270 1.6%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
2016-204020402016
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 12
Commercial Development
Market Values
The Mulberry Financial Plan assumes that the commercial space, both retail and office, in
the development will have a market value of $220 per square foot. To benchmark this
assumption, EPS compared it to the historical five-year average sales price per square
foot of retail and office space in the Fort Collins market and to the capitalized value of
retail and office space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average
rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate for the respective
product types, as shown in Table 9.
• Office: For office, the five-year average sales price was $157 per square foot or 29
percent less than the market value assumption used in the Financial Plan, and the
capitalized value was approximately $282 per square foot or 28 percent higher than
the market value.
• Retail: For retail, the five-year average sales price was $191 per square foot or 13
percent less than the market value assumption used in the Financial Plan, and the
capitalized value was approximately $240 per square foot or 10 percent higher than
the market value.
• Combined: The combined or weighted five-year average sales price was $182 per
square foot or 17 percent less than the market value assumption used in the Financial
Plan, and the capitalized value was approximately $252 per square foot or 15 percent
higher than the market value.
As a result of these comparisons, EPS concludes that the market value used in the
Financial Plan is relatively moderate and generally within a range set by the sales price
and capitalized value benchmarks.
Table 9. Retail Market Value Comparison
Sales Price Capitalized Mulberry
Description Per Sq. Ft. [1]Value [2]Assumption
Office
Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.)$157.00 $282.57 $220.00
% Difference [3]29%-28%0%
Retail
Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.)$191.00 $240.91 $220.00
% Difference [3]13%-10%0%
Weighted Avg. [4]$182 $252 $220
% Difference [3]17%-15%0%
[1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft.
[3] Percent difference from the market value assumption.
[4] Weighted average based on Mulberry's proposed development program (27% office and 73% retail).
Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems
[2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate.
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 13
Absorption
Office Absorption
EPS benchmarked Mulberry’s proposed office development against historic office
development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in Table 10. From
2019 to 2027, the Developer proposes to build an average of 9,556 square feet of office
per year. Over the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, the City delivered an average
134,430 square feet of office space per year. As a result, the Mulberry proposal implies a
capture rate of 7 percent per year relative to the historical average, which is a relatively
conservative number. However, the office market in North Fort Collins, not including
downtown, is not established and this amount of development may not be realized. The
proximity of the development to I-25 may help support additional office development.
The residential development will also help support service office uses once a critical mass
has been achieved.
Table 10. Mulberry Development Implied Office Capture Rate
Retail Absorption
EPS benchmarked Mulberry’s proposed retail development against historic office
development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in Table 11. From
2019 to 2027, the Developer proposes to build an average of 25,556 square feet of retail
per year. Over the last 12 years, from 2006 to 2017, the City delivered an average
141,826 square feet of retail space per year. As a result, the Mulberry proposal implies a
capture rate of 18 percent per year relative to the historical average. EPS believes that
an 18 percent capture rate is relatively high. However, the success of the retail portion of
the project will largely hinge on the success of the residential portion of the project—as
retail follows households. If the residential portion of the development is successful then
it is likely that the retail portion of the development will be successful.
Mulberry Fort Collins Montava
Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture %
2019-2027 2000-2017
Office 9,556 134,430 7%
[1] Capture % = Mulberry Average / Fort Collins Average.
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 14
Table 11. Mulberry Development Implied Retail Capture Rate
To gain a perspective on the amount of retail relative to the residential development, EPS
estimated the amount of retail that could be supported by the households in the Mulberry
project alone, as shown in Table 12. Based on this analysis, EPS estimates that just the
households in Mulberry, not including any inflow, could support approximately 78,000
square feet of locally oriented retail or 152,000 less than the proposed 230,000 square
feet of retail in the development. This suggests that the amount of retail space in the
development is greater in proportion to the number of residential units. To support this
level of retail, the development will need to attract inflow from residents that live outside
of the development and potentially attract more regionally-serving retail uses.
Table 12. Mulberry Retail Demand TPI Model
Mulberry Fort Collins Mulberry
Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture %
2019-2027 2006-2017
Retail 25,556 141,826 18%
[1] Capture % = Mulberry Average / Fort Collins Average.
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Description Units Formula Amount Source
Units #A 1,600 D.A. Davidson
Occupancy %B 95.0%EPS
HHs #C = A x B 1,520 Calculation
Mean HH Income $/HH D $81,151 ACS 2017 1-Year
TPI $E = C X D $123,349,520 Calculation
% of HH Inc. on Retail %F 35%2012 Census of Retail Trade
E-Commerce % Total %G 10%EPS
Pct. Taxable Expenditures %H = F + G 32%Calculation
Est. Taxable Expenditures $I = (1-H) x E $38,978,358 Calculation
% Locally-Oriented %J 50%2012 Census of Retail Trade
Total Local Spending $K = (1-J) x I $19,489,179 Calculation
Avg. Sales Per SF $/sq. ft.L $250 EPS
Total Retail Space sq. ft.P = K / L 77,957 Calculation
Source: D.A. Davidson; ACS 2017 1-Year; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 15
Grocery Store
Another perspective on the likelihood of neighborhood/community retail potential would
be to determine at what point a grocery store would be supportable as the anchor for a
neighborhood shopping center. To gain insights on the potential feasibility of grocery,
Table 13 shows the number of households within a two-mile radius of the development.
A two-mile radius represents a typical service area of a grocery store. As a rule of thumb,
a typical grocery store requires between 6,000 and 7,000 households within its service
area to be supportable. As of 2018, there were 4,197 households in the service area. The
development is proposed to add an additional 1,600 households, which will increase the
total number of households in the service area to approximately 5,800. This is only 200
households short of the minimum threshold of 6,000. Growth in other areas of the service
area will likely push the number of households above the minimum threshold.
While there will likely be enough households within a two-mile radius of the development
to nominally support a grocery store, the space would face competition from a number of
stores already within or near the two-mile radius of the development, including a
Safeway at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and South Lemay Avenue and a Walmart
Supercenter at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and South Lemay Avenue. Moreover,
the District will face competition from other metro districts and other developments for
grocery store space.
Overall, EPS finds a grocery store to be feasible within the area—especially a smaller,
more neighborhood oriented one as suggested in the District plan. A smaller grocery
store will be more readily supportable by fewer households and may compete less
directly with the larger grocery store chains in the area. In addition, the store will become
more feasible as the development builds out.
Table 13. Demographics in a 2 Mile Radius from Mulberry Development
Forecast
Description 2000 2010 2018 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %
Demographics
Population 6,579 8,860 11,789 13,581 7,002 304 3.2%
Households 2,550 3,151 4,197 4,802 2,252 98 2.8%
Avg. HH Size 2.58 2.81 2.81 2.83 0.25 0.01 0.4%
Income
Median Income ------$63,967 $75,503 ---------
Source: ESRI; Economic & Planning Systems
2000-2023
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 16
Metro District Competition in North Fort Collins
Mulberry is one of four major planned developments, all proposing metro districts in
the North Fort Collins area. The others include Montava, Water’s Edge, and Waterfield.
At buildout (from 2018 to 2042), the four proposed districts are projected to result in
7,411 additional housing units. This is 24 percent of the estimated growth of
approximately 30,500 households in Fort Collins from 2016 to 2040, as shown in
Table 8.
Given that North Fort Collins is one of the few remaining growth areas in the city, an
expected capture rate of 24 percent seems reasonable. However, on a year-to-year
basis the four developments will compete for absorption. If the developments happen
to each deliver a large number of units at the same time, it may take months or even
years for these units to be absorbed. This will in turn impact the bond revenue
projections of the four districts.
Figure 4 below compares the combined estimated residential build of each of the
districts with the total average annual growth rate for the city in Table 8. The figure
illustrates that while from 2019 to 2042 the four districts will need to capture 24
percent of total growth, in certain years the buildout schedules imply a much higher
capture rate, including 96 percent in 2021.
Appendix A provides more detail on the residential buildout assumptions for each
of the metro districts.
Figure 4. Implied Capture Rate Four Metro Districts
The four districts will also compete in their commercial programs, particularly in the
retail portion of these programs. In total, the districts project to develop over 500,000
square feet of retail. Based on a TPI model, the districts’ residential program would
only support approximately 361,000 square feet. In additional to competing with each
other, the retail will need to attract regional inflow to be supportable.
Appendix B provides additional detail on the commercial programs.
Appendix C provides additional detail on the TPI model.
7%
37%
96%
49%
43%
34%
72%
40%
25%28%
20%20%
10%11%
20%19%
9%9%8%9%6%0%6%6%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
Implied Catpure Rate
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 17
Financial Analysis
The Service Plan proposes to use the revenues derived from metro district property taxes
to issue debt in the form of bonds. These bond proceeds will be used to reimburse the
Developer for public improvement costs. This section reviews proposed public
improvement costs and the revenue and debt estimates described in the metro district
Service Plan.
Public Improvement Costs
The Developer provided the public improvement cost estimates in Exhibit F of the Service
Plan. Overall, public improvements associated with the development are estimated to be
approximately $105 million, as shown in Table 14. This includes $74 million in basic
infrastructure costs and $31 million in non-basic or extraordinary costs. Basic costs
include earthwork, sanitary sewer, water, stormwater, sidewalks, and streets. Non-basic
include non-potable water systems, regional street improvements, and park and other
amenities including a community pool and retail promenade. It is important to note that
these cost estimates are preliminary and will likely change as the development plan
evolves and becomes more detailed.
The Developer proposes to issue debt generating approximately $64 million in project
proceeds, as shown in Table 14. This debt would cover 61 percent of the total public
improvement costs. The Developer would need to cover the remaining $41 million with
other funds.
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 18
Table 14. Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Description Basic Non-Basic Total % Total
Public Improvement Costs
Earthwork $4,243,630 $0 $4,243,630 4%
Sanitary $7,150,257 $0 $7,150,257 7%
Water $7,306,574 $846,428 $8,153,002 8%
Non-Potable Water $0 $4,642,200 $4,642,200 4%
Stormwater $6,087,601 $0 $6,087,601 6%
Concrete $6,905,368 $0 $6,905,368 7%
Streets $14,375,566 $4,002,023 $18,377,589 18%
Erosion Control $1,209,508 $1,209,508 1%
Landscaping $4,398,967 $4,582,017 $8,980,984 9%
Amenities/Misc $0 0%
Neighborhood Pool $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 3%
Commercial Promenade $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 3%
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings $0 $75,000 $75,000 0%
Gateway/Monumentation and ROW $0 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 1%
Greenfields Rail Crossing $0 $500,000 $500,000 0%
Greenfield Offsite Costs $0 $524,453 $524,453 1%
Mulberry Intersection $0 $300,000 $300,000 0%
Other Costs $2,001,333 $0 $2,001,333 2%
Construction Mgmt/General Conditions $9,777,098 $3,408,318 $13,185,416 13%
Contingency $10,581,274 $4,544,424 $15,125,698 14%
Total $74,037,176 $30,674,863 $104,712,039 100%
Metro District Impact
Project Funds $64,072,025 61%
Other Funds $40,640,014 39%
Total $104,712,039 100%
Source: Hartford Investments LLC; Galloway; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 19
Revenue Estimates
Proposed Mill Levies and Facility Fee
The proposed maximum District Mill Levy of 50 mills is relatively common and within the
distribution of similar metro districts in Colorado. The 50 mills would be added onto to the
existing property tax levy of 90.828 mills and increase the property tax burden. Based on
information in the Financial Plan and D.A. Davidson’s bond projections, the Developer
plans to charge 50 mills (40 mills as debt levy and 10 mills for operations) for the
residential portion of the project, and 30 mills (20 mills as debt levy and 10 mills for
operations) for the commercial portion of the project. (The Developer is able to do this by
forming separate districts for the residential and retail areas of the program.) The
Developer is likely charging the commercial portion of the project less due to the higher
assessment rate for commercial property in the State (29 percent compared to 7.2
percent for residential). A lower commercial mill rate allows the commercial proportion of
the project to remain competitive.
For the residential portion of the property, the maximum District Mill Levy of 50 mills
would result in an average of $1,146 per year or $96 per month of additional cost to the
tenant. For the commercial portion of the property, the 30 mills would result in an
average of $1.91 per square feet of additional property tax cost per year, as shown in
Table 15.
Table 15. Metro District Mill Levies
Market Assessed
Description Value Value Existing District Total
Residential (Units)7.20%90.828 mills 50.000 mills 140.828 mills
Cluster Homes $350,000 $25,200 $2,289 $1,260 $3,549
Single Family - Alley Loaded $450,000 $32,400 $2,943 $1,620 $4,563
Single Family - Traditional $500,000 $36,000 $3,270 $1,800 $5,070
Townhomes $475,000 $34,200 $3,106 $1,710 $4,816
Condos $300,000 $21,600 $1,962 $1,080 $3,042
Market Rate $205,000 $14,760 $1,341 $738 $2,079
Affordable $110,000 $7,920 $719 $396 $1,115
Weighted Average $318,250 $22,914 $2,081 $1,146 $3,227
% Total 64%36%100%
Commercial ($/SF)29.00%90.828 mills 30.000 mills 120.828 mills
Office $220 $64 $5.79 $1.91 $7.71
Commercial $220 $64 $5.79 $1.91 $7.71
Weighted Average $220 $64 $5.79 $1.91 $7.71
% Total 75%25%100%
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Property Tax
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 20
Public Revenue Forecasts and Bond Proceeds
D.A. Davidson estimates that the metro district will generate a total of approximately
$122 million in revenues from Debt Mill Levy collections, as shown in Table 16. The
market value and absorption assumptions described in the Market Assessment section of
this memorandum are the main drivers of these revenue estimates. A reduction in the
proposed market values for the residential and commercial development and/or extended
buildout and absorption schedule will reduce the total bond proceeds. The underwriting
process and bond structure include reserve funds and capitalized interest mitigate
difference between forecasted and actual values relating to market values, buildout
schedule, and other variables. These public revenues will be used to generate
approximately $64.1 million that can be used to reimburse the Developer for
infrastructure expenditures related to the public improvements.
Table 16. Mulberry Metro District Public Revenue and Project Funds
Description Amount % Total
Public Revenues
Bond Par Value $64,595,000 53%
Interest $57,395,200 47%
Total $121,990,200 100%
Project Funds
Par Value $64,595,000
Underwriter's Discount -$322,975
Cost of Issuance -$200,000
Total $64,072,025
Source: D.A. Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 21
Public Benefits
The City’s policy for reviewing metro districts supports the formation of a district “where
it will deliver extraordinary public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the
City”. The policy goes on to define four focus areas or types of benefits that meet this
policy as follows:
• Environmental Sustainability Outcomes – defined as public improvements that
provide environmental benefits including reduction in greenhouse gases, water or
energy conservation, community resiliency against natural disasters, renewable
energy capacity, and/or other environmental outcomes.
• Critical Public Infrastructure – public improvements that address significant
infrastructure needs previously identified by the City.
• Smart Growth Management – public improvements that facilitate design that
increases development density, enhances walkability, increases the availability of
transit or multimodal facilities, and/or encourages mixed use development patterns.
• Strategic Priorities – public improvements that address City priorities including
affordable housing, infill or redevelopment, and economic health improvements (e.g.,
job growth business retention, or construction of a missing economic resource).
Exhibit I of the Service Plan describes the proposed public benefits of the Mulberry
project. The Developer is able to provide these public benefits in part due to the District
bonds that reimburse the developer for public improvement costs. More specifically, by
reimbursing basic infrastructure investments typically associated with development with
District bond proceeds, the Developer is able to invest more money into public benefits
the City views as priorities. These include environmental sustainability, critical public
infrastructure, smart growth management, and strategic priorities like affordable housing.
The Service Plan describes a number of public benefits for the project. These include
creating a mixed-use, New Urbanist community with a number of housing options and
employing Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) principles. They also include:
• Roads – including the extension of Greenfields Court to connect Mulberry to I-25;
• Non-Potable Water System – to reduce the amount of water used for landscaping
(which can be between 60 and 70 percent of the total water use of a development);
• Parks, Open Space, and Trails – including a variety of trail connections, community
parks, and a community pool;
• Attainable Homes Price – primarily provided through denser housing and smaller
lots;
• Affordable Housing – a minimum of 160 units between 60 and 120 percent of the
area median income (AMI);
• Environmental Sustainability – including a commitment to 800 kW of solar
capacity, xeric landscaping.
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 22
Table 17 shows the Developer’s estimates of the value for different public benefits in the
four focus areas outlined by the City. Overall, the development estimates that the District
is providing approximately $69 million of public benefits. This amount is greater than the
total estimated bond proceeds of approximately $64 million. Overall, the Service Plan
does not guarantee the delivery of public benefits. Public benefits will have to be vetted
and guaranteed through additional approval steps for the metro district, including
approval of the development plan.
After reviewing the District plan, EPS identified several items for which it is difficult to
determine what are “extraordinary benefits” to the City and what are simply costs
associated with a typical development of this type as listed below:
• Added Utility Services – The District plan describes this cost as relating to
additional water and sewer infrastructure associated with higher density housing
types. However, it is unclear whether these costs are recouped in the pricing of this
housing or through additional revenues from increased total lots in the District.
• Non-Potable Irrigation System – The public benefit estimates includes the costs of
the non-potable water irrigation system at $4.6 million. However, it also takes credit
for the $19.0 million in water savings to consumers under “Water Savings for Non-
Potable Irrigation System”. This appears to be “double counting” by
taking credit for both the costs of building the irrigation system and again for the
savings to consumers for the resultant water usage reduction.
• Affordable Housing – There is insufficient information to substantiate the $10.5
affordable housing benefits claimed for the project. As indicated above, the project
shows 300 affordable housing units in Table 1 with no income or price specifications.
The Financial Plan (Exhibit I) indicates that 10 percent of total housing will be
affordable at 60 to 120 percent of AMI. If the units are all apartments and provided at
below 60 percent AMI, they would be affordable at a level requiring a subsidy. If
some of the units are for-sale affordable housing, the income levels could potentially
be modestly higher but not above 100 percent AMI. In any case, the project would
need to substantiate the actual costs of the subsidies to qualify as an extraordinary
public benefit.
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 23
Table 17. Mulberry Development Public Benefit Estimates
Description Category Benefit % Total
Enivronmental Sustainability
800 kW of Solar Power GHG Reduction $1,969,400 3%
Non-Potable Water Irrigation System Water Conservation $4,642,190 7%
Pollinator Corridor Enhanced Resiliency $160,800 0%
Cooperslough Improvements Enhanced Resiliency $500,000 1%
Lake Canal Improvements Enhanced Resiliency $150,000 0%
Subtotal $7,422,390 11%
Critical Public Infrastructure
Rail Crossing On-Site $500,000 1%
Vine & Timberline Contribution Off-Site $250,000 0%
Greenfield RAB Off-Site $524,453 1%
Subtotal $1,274,453 2%
Smart Growth Management
Alley Loaded Homes Increased Density $4,002,023 6%
Added Utility Services Walkability $15,138,750 22%
Enhanced Crossings Public Space $75,000 0%
Neighborhood Parks Public Space $3,270,672 5%
Swimming Pool Public Space $3,000,000 4%
Commercial Center Promenade Public Space $3,000,000 4%
Subtotal $28,486,445 41%
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing Affordable Housing $10,458,500 15%
Water Savings for Non-Potable Irrigation System Affordable Housing $18,962,544 28%
Mulberry Frontage Improvemetns Infill & Redevelopment $500,000 1%
Monument/Gateway Signage Infill & Redevelopment $1,250,000 2%
Mulberry Intersection/Median Improvements Infill & Redevelopment $300,000 0%
Subtotal $31,471,044 46%
TOTAL $68,654,332 100%
Source: Hartford Homes; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 24
Summary and Conclusions
• Proposed Mill Levies: The proposed Mulberry maximum aggregate mill levy of 50
mills is in line with the City’s current metro district policy. Reducing the mill for the
commercial proportion of the project helps to mitigate the property tax burden on
commercial properties and will help the commercial portion of the development be
competitive.
• Market Values: EPS generally finds that the market values used in the public
revenue estimates to be reasonable. These assumptions align with market averages,
given a new construction premium, and the residential market values are comparable
to other recent developments in North Fort Collins.
• Residential Absorption: Mulberry is an ambitious development that will need to
capture a significant portion of the residential and retail market to achieve the
proposed buildout assumptions in its Financial Plan. In particular, Mulberry will need
to compete with other larger-scale residential and mixed-use developments planned
for North Fort Collins, including the Waterfield, Water’s Edge, and Montava. The fact
that North Fort Collins is one of the only remaining growth areas of the city should
help each of these developments achieve a significant market share. However, in
aggregate, the cumulative absorption of these four large developments may exceed
overall market demand.
• Retail Absorption: The success of the retail portion of the project will depend on the
success of the residential portion of the project. Overall, EPS finds that the retail
program to be oversized. To support this level of retail, the project will need to attract
inflow from residents that live outside of the development and potentially build more
regionally-serving retail.
• Office Absorption: EPS finds that an implied 7 percent capture rate of the office
program to be a reasonable target for the development. However, we note that the
office market in North Fort Collins is immature. The proximity of the development to
I-25 may help support office in Mulberry. The residential development will also help
support service office uses once a critical mass has been achieved.
• Public Benefits: As outlined in Exhibit I Public Benefits, the Service Plan proposes an
extensive list of public improvement that potentially meet the City’s proposed metro
district criteria for extraordinary public benefits. The estimated value of these benefits
is greater than the estimate project fund proceeds from a bond issuance. However,
there are at least three public benefits for which the value is either unsubstantiated or
overstated requiring additional supportable data including—Added Utility Services,
water savings from Non-Potable Water Irrigation System, and Affordable Housing.
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 25
Appendices
Appendix A: Metro District Residential Buildout Assumptions
Table 18. Metro District Residential Buildout
Mulberry Montava Water's Edge Waterfield Total
Description Low Middle Low Middle Low Middle Low Middle Low Middle Total
Year
2019 0 0 0 0 60 24 0 0 60 24 84
2020 0 0 160 50 69 40 54 100 283 190 473
2021 120 540 175 150 69 40 54 72 418 802 1,220
2022 120 0 170 125 68 40 54 46 412 211 623
2023 120 0 180 100 65 40 38 0 403 140 543
2024 120 0 180 0 65 40 30 0 395 40 435
2025 120 300 180 180 65 40 30 0 395 520 915
2026 80 40 180 90 61 31 20 0 341 161 502
2027 0 40 160 90 31 0 0 0 191 130 321
2028 0 0 175 180 0 0 0 0 175 180 355
2029 0 0 175 80 0 0 0 0 175 80 255
2030 0 0 160 100 0 0 0 0 160 100 260
2031 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 130
2032 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 140
2033 0 0 150 100 0 0 0 0 150 100 250
2034 0 0 140 100 0 0 0 0 140 100 240
2035 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 120 120
2036 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 110 110
2037 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
2038 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 110 110
2039 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 75 75
2040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2041 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 75 75
2042 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 75 75
Summary
Total 680 920 2,455 2,010 553 295 280 218 3,968 3,443 7,411
Avg.28 38 102 84 23 12 12 9 165 143 309
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 26
Appendix B: Metro District Commercial Buildout Assumptions
Table 19. Metro District Commercial Buildout
Mulberry Montava Water's Edge Total
Description Retail Office Retail Office Industrial Retail Retail Office Industrial
Year
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 0 0 20,000 0 30,000 0 20,000 0 30,000
2021 0 0 20,000 0 40,000 0 20,000 0 40,000
2022 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000
2023 0 0 25,000 15,000 0 20,000 45,000 15,000 0
2024 0 0 25,000 0 30,000 0 25,000 0 30,000
2025 108,900 0 0 25,000 0 20,000 128,900 25,000 0
2026 121,999 86,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 0 131,999 96,000 40,000
2027 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 30,000 40,000 10,000 0
2028 0 0 10,000 0 40,000 0 10,000 0 40,000
2029 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0
2030 0 0 10,000 10,000 40,000 0 10,000 10,000 40,000
2031 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0 0
2032 0 0 20,000 0 50,000 0 20,000 0 50,000
2033 0 0 0 30,000 50,000 0 0 30,000 50,000
2034 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2036 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000
2037 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0 0
2038 0 0 0 10,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 25,000
2039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2040 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0
2041 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2042 0 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 0
2043 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0
2044 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0
Summary
Total 230,899 86,000 210,000 200,000 445,000 70,000 510,899 286,000 445,000
Avg.8,881 3,308 8,077 7,692 17,115 2,692 19,650 11,000 17,115
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Mulberry Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 27
Appendix C: Metro District TPI Analysis
Table 20. Metro District TPI Analysis
Description Units Formula Amount Source
Units #A 7,411 D.A. Davidson
Occupancy %B 95.0%EPS
HHs #C = A x B 7,040 Calculation
Mean HH Income $/HH D $81,151 ACS 2017 1-Year
TPI $E = C X D $571,339,558 Calculation
% of HH Inc. on Retail %F 35%2012 Census of Retail Trade
E-Commerce % Total %G 10%EPS
Pct. Taxable Expenditures %H = F + G 32%Calculation
Est. Taxable Expenditures $I = (1-H) x E $180,542,880 Calculation
% Locally-Oriented %J 50%2012 Census of Retail Trade
Total Local Spending $K = (1-J) x I $90,271,440 Calculation
Avg. Sales Per SF $/sq. ft.L $250 EPS
Total Retail Space sq. ft.P = K / L 361,086 Calculation
Source: D.A. Davidson; ACS 2017 1-Year; Economic & Planning Systems
1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Abbye Neel, Water Conservation Specialist
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
Date: Monday February 25th
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Allotment Management Program (AMP)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek input from the Council Finance Committee regarding the
proposed Allotment Management Program to assist customers in reducing their Excess Water
Use Surcharges by reducing their landscape water use. The proposed program targets a specific
group of customers impacted by the changes to the Water Supply Requirements (formally Raw
Water Requirements) and the related increase to the Excess Water Use Fee as outlined in Section
26-129 of City Code.
To support Utility goals and customer needs Utilities staff recommends the following:
• A change in City Code that gives discretion to the Executive Director to provide a
temporary exemption from the Excess Water Use fees while a customer implements a
project to permanently reduce the customer’s landscape water use.
Through the proposed program, customers can apply funds toward implementing water
conservation projects to lower their demands and reduce Excess Water Use fees in the future.
Projects will help customers convert to more resilient landscapes and will also lower the
Utilities’ need to develop additional water supplies to compensate for use beyond what was
provided for these customers at the time of initial development.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have regarding the
proposed Allotment Management Program?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee support the proposed program and recommend
bringing the item to City Council for adoption?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Water Supply Requirements
Since the 1960s, The City has required that all Water Utility customers meet Water Supply
Requirements (WSR). The WSR is a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water
2
rights to the Water Utility to provide reliable water supply service to the customer. From 1965
to mid-1984, WSRs were determined only by the total acreage developed (e.g. a one-acre
development would be required to meet a WSR of 3 acre-feet of water). In March of 1984, the
methodology for determining WSRs changed to including both the acreage developed and the
estimated water use for the development type (e.g. brewery vs. an office building). This
methodology was adopted to ensure reliable water use for all customers.
Commercial Water Allotments
Commercial taps that have met the WSR since 1984 have also received an equivalent water
allotment, which is the annual volume of water a meter (tap) can use without being subject to an
Excess Water Use (EWU) fee. If a tap uses more water than the established annual allotment, the
(EWU) fee is applied to all water used over the allotment for the remainder of the calendar year.
This charge is in addition to the standard water rate. The EWU provides revenue to the Water
Utility to purchase additional water rights and/or infrastructure to serve the customer beyond
what was provided at the time of development.
For customers with a meter (tap) size less than 2”, the WSR and equivalent water allotment are
largely determined by the amount of typical water use within a meter (or tap) size. Table 1
summarizes historical CIL and corresponding allotments for specific tap sizes.
Tap Size (inches) Minimum WSR
(acre-feet)
Equivalent CIL
Payment at $6,500
per acre-foot
Minimum Annual
Allotment
(Gallons/Year)
¾ 0.90 $5,980 293,270
1 3.00 $19,500 977,550
1 ½ 6.00 $39,000 1,955,110
2 9.60 $62,000 3,128,170
3 and above Based on use
All water taps installed prior to the change (pre- March 1984) were grandfathered into the system
and do not have an allotment unless the property has applied for a new water permit.
In September 2017, City Council approved various changes to the WSRs, including an increase
in the CIL rate (Code Section 26-129). As a result, the CIL price increased from $6,500 to
$17,300 per acre-foot of water (a 2.66 factor increase). The EWU fee also increased by the same
factor: from $3.06 to $8.14 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment. Methodology for determining
this increase can be found in ATTACMENT 1.
Customer Impact related to EWU Changes
About 34 percent (~1200) commercial water taps have annual water allotments. In a given year,
approximately 10 percent of all commercial taps exceed their allotment (~350 accounts with an
allotment). Most taps that exceed their allotment are irrigation taps. Of these irrigation taps, over
70 are associated with HOAs or multi-family complexes where residents, as opposed to
businesses, are responsible for paying the EWU fees.
3
At the previous rate of $3.06 per 1,000 gallons, customers paid up to $20,000 in EWU fees, with
the majority paying an average of $1,500. Three customers experienced EWU fees over $10,000.
With the new rate of $8.14 per 1,000 gallons, customers paid up to $40,000 in EWU fees, with
the majority paying $4,000 and 30 paying over $10,000.
Customers who exceed their allotment currently have four options related to EWU Fees:
1. Make no changes and pay the EWU fees at rate of $8.14 per 1,000 gallons over the
allotment.
2. Pay the CIL rate to permanently increase their allotment. With the 1.92 supply factor 1
included, the cost is $33,216 per acre-foot 2 increase.
3. Implement a conservation project to reduce use to or below allotment.
4. Stop using water to reduce use to or below allotment (e.g. abandon or stress the landscape
to avoid excess water use fees).
Customer Outreach for EWU Changes
Staff conducted outreach to impacted customers throughout 2017, prior to adoption of changes to
the WSR. Early stakeholder outreach focused on the development community, as this was the
primary focus of the WSR changes. Outreach to current commercial customers impacted by the
increase in the EWU Fees was initiated in mid-2017 and to date has included postcards and
letters, targeted outreach via phone calls, emails, and in-person meetings, informational sessions,
workshops, and free education-based services (e.g. the Landscape Budget Program). However,
even with the significant outreach, staff recognizes that impacted customers need additional time
to understand the financial impacts of the EWU increase and reduce their excess water use to
avoid the additional costs noted above.
Customer Feedback on EWU Changes
Feedback received from customers impacted by the increase in EWU fees are summarized as
follows:
• Dramatic cost increase (166%).
• Not enough time to prepare or factor in a solution into their annual budgeting before prices
were raised (no customer was notified more than six months prior to implementation in
January 2018).
• Significant concern in cases where the allotment is not sized correctly for the use type as
depicted in Figure 1 (e.g. tap’s allotment is not large enough given the property’s efficient
water need). Customers in this situation often express frustration with the City for allowing
the developer to satisfy a WSR with an allotment that was not large enough for the property
at the time of initial development.
1 A 1.92 water supply factor is applied to all non-residential taps to account for treatment and distribution losses in
the supply system, variable demands of customers (e.g., higher use during hot, dry years), variable yields of supplies
(e.g., less yield in droughts) and variable yield from the Utilities different water supply sources (since some yield
better than others).
2 1 acre-foot = 325,815 gallons
4
In 2018, seven customer complaints regarding the impact of increased EWU Fees were escalated
to City Council members. In response, staff committed to presenting a proposed solution to City
Council in Q1 of 2019 (ATTACHMENT 2).
Rationale for Proposed Allotment Management Program (AMP)
Staff have identified three primary reasons customers exceed their annual water allotments:
1. Inefficient water use (e.g. overwatering)
2. Change in use type (e.g. a building that was originally a gas station changes to a
restaurant)
3. Allotment is not sized correctly for the use type as depicted in Figure 1 (e.g. tap’s
allotment is not large enough given the property’s efficient water need).
Staff have tools available (e.g. Water Conservation programs) to assist customers with inefficient
water use and changes in use type (#1 and #2 above). Resources are not available, however, to
assist customers with an allotment that is not sized correctly (#3 above), which are typically
HOAs with irrigation taps. To avoid paying fees, these customers must either pay the EWU fees,
the current CIL rates to increase their allotment, or implement water conservation projects to
reduce their water use.
Example: An HOA in Fort Collins has a two-inch tap with an allotment of 3.1 million gallons.
Analysis shows that the current landscape needs a minimum of 6.7 million gallons.3 The HOA
can:
1. Pay the excess water use fees: $25,000 per year
2. Pay the CIL rate to permanently increase their allotment: $367,000
3. Implement a conservation project to reduce use to or below allotment: $75,000 over the
course of 3 years to reduce landscape need to o 2.8 million gallons
Most HOAs do not have the reserves available to fund the yearly EWUs long-term or the cost to
increase their allotment. Through stakeholder outreach, Staff has identified that many of these
customers would like to implement a water conservation project, however they cannot finance
water conservation projects and the EWU fees at the same time. The proposed Allotment
3 Numbers are from a Fort Collins Utilities Customer
Property’s Efficient Water Need Annual Water Use
Allotment
Need > Allotment Excess Water Use
Figure 1 – A customer’s Annual Water Use is larger than its allotment resulting in EWU fees
(depicted in red). However, the customer’s efficient water need (depicted in green) is larger than
the allotment. Because the customer’s need is larger than the allotment the property will always
receive excess water use fees unless a large change is made.
5
Management Program targets these customers by providing a temporary exemption from EWU
fees while customers implement water savings projects to reduce their water use.
Proposed Allotment Management Program (AMP)
Staff proposes a change to City Code that would give the Utilities Executive Director the ability
to provide a customer a temporary exemption from the Excess Water Use fees if they meet
specific requirements. During the exemption period customers will be able to redirect funds that
would have been used to pay EWU fees into a water conservation project.
Customer enrollment in the Allotment Management Program (AMP) is proposed as follows:
• Eligible customers submit an application with a plan for long-term permanent reduction
in outdoor water use.
• Staff determines if customer and project qualify.
• If project qualifies, customer receives a temporary exemption from excess water use fees
for a predetermined period of time.
• Customers who do not complete a project will be billed for any applicable water use fees.
If approved, the customers would be eligible for an exemption starting in 2020. The program will
be available through Dec 31, 2022. Additional program details include:
• Eligibility
o All customers with commercial rate codes (includes commercial customers and all
irrigation taps).
• Qualifications
o Customer demonstrates need (e.g. customers water tap is undersized) and is
quantified with support from Water Conservation Staff.
o Project is reasonable and demonstrates long-term reduction in outdoor water use.
• Program Details
o Up to 3-year exemption depending on project type and scope.
o If granted a multi-year project status, amount of exemption will be tiered (e.g.
Year 1 – 100% waived, Year 2 – 50% waived).
o Customer must meet project milestones outlined in a customer agreement to stay
enrolled in the program. If deadlines are not met customer will be back billed any
EWU fees and asked to leave the program.
Customers will be able to redirect money that would have been used to pay EWU fees into a
project that will reduce the customer’s water use to better align with their allotment.
Staff believes this is the best solution for customers and the Utility because:
1. As the cost of water supplies and infrastructure rise, the cost of WSRs and the associated
EWU fee will continue to increase, which may result in customers abandoning
landscapes, as we’ve seen in other Front Range communities, or have other impacts on
residents. AMP provides a proactive solution that ensure customers can adapt to
increasing costs while increasing community resiliency to drought and a changing
climate.
6
2. AMP is a cost-effective way to reduce the volume of water the Utility must provide to
compensate for use over what was initially provided at the time of development by
avoiding additional water storage projects beyond the Halligan Water Supply Project.
The proposed AMP also aligns with key City Strategic Objectives related to Environmental
Health and High Performing Government and with Council-adopted Plans, including the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy and the Water Efficiency Plan.
Potential Risks associated with AMP
The primary risk associated with AMP is the unrealized revenue associated with waiving EWU
Fees. Based on the average number of customers that exceed their allotment (~350) the
maximum revenue implication if every customer were to apply, qualify, and not complete a
project with a long-term water reduction would be $1.2 Million. However, based on analysis of
water use and the number of customers who have expressed interest, staff expects around 50
customers to participate. The expected revenue implication is $370,000.
Staff is mitigating risks associated with AMP in the following ways:
• Requiring customers sign agreements to meet milestones and have regular progress
check-ins to ensure projects are completed.
• Staff has a successful record in supporting customers through programs like the
Xeriscape Incentive Program.
• Back-billing customers who do not complete projects.
• Implementing a decreasing tiered exemption for multi-year projects to lower the risk of
providing a multi-year exemption (e.g. 100% then 50%).
AMP Outreach
Utilities Staff have presented AMP to key stakeholders including property managers, HOA
community members, Utilities key accounts, businesses affected by the change, the landscape
contractor community, and other affected City departments (Forestry, Parks, Development
Planning, Natural Areas, and Zoning). In addition, staff completed a work session with the Water
Board and will present AMP to the Natural Resource Advisory Board, Economic Health
Advisory Board – see dates below.
Input received has been very supportive of the proposed program. Concerns are primarily related
to the following:
• Ensuring that the assigned annual water allotment matches the expected water use at the
time of development in the future (note Utilities staff is developing improvements to the
process in partnership with Development Review staff).
• How customers who have already implemented solutions will respond if AMP is
approved.
• The proposed program’s adoption timeline and if they will have enough time to respond
in 2019.
• Other City Departments (e.g. Forestry, Natural Areas, and Parks) regarding impacts to
vegetation and tree loss if customers stop watering landscapes.
7
Next Steps
Staff is proposing to present the program for consideration by City Council on April 16th. Staff
will consider CFC input and conduct any additional outreach or analysis before presenting to
City Council.
Upcoming schedule:
• 3/20/2019: Natural Resources Advisory Board
• 3/20/209: Economic Health Advisory Board
• 3/21/2019: Water Board – action item
• 4/16/2019: 1st reading City Council
ATTACHMENTS
1. Methodology for determining Cash-In-Lieu increase
2. 2017 Memorandums in response to customer concerns
1
Attachment 1 – Methodology for determining Cash-In-Lieu increase
Relevant sections highlighted.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 23, 2017 Work Session
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Donnie Dustin, P.E., Water Resources Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
Subject for discussion – Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council Finance Committee with an
overview of the current Raw Water Requirement system and associated cash-in-lieu rate,
and review proposed changes to the current approach.
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
• Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
• Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to ~$16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
• Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits) for RWR
satisfaction
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support changing the amount of raw water requirements to reflect recent
(lower) water use?
2. Does Council support adopting the proposed Cash-in-lieu rate?
3. Does Council support accepting cash only rather than cash and/or water rights?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Utilities’ Raw Water Requirements (“RWR”) are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu
of water rights to ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available
to serve the water needs of development. In preparation for an update to City Council at their
February 14, 2017 work session, staff will present background information including the existing
RWR system and cash-in-lieu (“CIL”) rate, future development and water supply needs, water
use changes, and potential changes to the RWR system and CIL rates.
2
Water Service Areas in Fort Collins
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort
Collins. As the City continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, much of this growth
will be outside the Utilities water service area, and will instead be in the service areas of the
surrounding water districts (mostly the East Larimer County Water District and the Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District (“Districts””)). Water service for much of this growth will thus be
provided by the Districts. The attached map shows these service areas (ATTACHMENT 1).
Although regional water collaboration discussions are ongoing with the Districts and direction or
potential outcomes of those discussions have yet to be determined, any proposed changes to
the RWR will only apply to water service from Utilities and within the Utilities water service area.
This does not preclude future changes to the RWR for water service from Utilities based on
potential outcomes of the regional discussions or from the Districts modifying their RWR.
Raw Water Requirements
The RWR are a requirement for providing adequate water supply service by Utilities. It currently
requires a dedication of water rights, a payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights, or City-issued
water certificates to ensure that an adequate supply of raw (untreated) water and associated
infrastructure (e.g., storage reservoirs) are available to serve the needs of development
(including redevelopment).
Generally, the RWR are based on water use and development type. The current RWR
schedules are attached (ATTACHMENTS 2 and 3). The goal of the RWR is to acquire adequate
water rights and funds to provide a reliable raw water supply for a development. Although not
the focus of this discussion, other water-related development fees include water and wastewater
plant investment fees (“PIFs”) that are assessed to cover the treatment and distribution
infrastructure required to process and transport treated water and resulting wastewater into and
out of a development. These water-related development fees are one-time impact fees (or
requirements) and are separate from water rates, which recover the operational costs of running
and maintaining this infrastructure. For the purposes of this discussion, RWR refers to the
volume of raw water needed to meet the projected water use of a development (in acre-feet of
water) and the CIL fee refers to the cash equivalent of that water supply needed.
The current amount of RWR assessed for residential development is based on a calculation that
incorporates indoor and outdoor use components and a water supply factor multiplier. The
current amount of RWR assessed for non-residential (or commercial) development is based on
the average use for particular meter (or tap) sizes and also includes a water supply factor
multiplier. The water supply factor used in both the residential and commercial RW R schedules
is currently 1.92, which means that Utilities requires 1.92 times the amount of the projected (or
average) water use of a development. Reasons for this factor include the need to account for
treatment and distribution losses in the supply system, variable demands of customers (e.g.,
higher use during hot, dry years), variable yields of supplies (e.g., less yield in droughts) and
variable yield from the Utilities different water supply sources (since some yield better than
others). Given these and other uncertainties in providing reliable water supplies (e.g., climate
change), the 1.92 water supply factor continues to be reasonable.
Once the amount of RWR for a development is determined (in acre-feet), the RWR currently
can be satisfied with acceptable water rights, a payment of cash in-lieu-of water rights, City-
issued water certificates or credits, or a combination. The water rights currently accepted by
Utilities for satisfaction of the RWR are attached (ATTACHMENT 4). The Utilities CIL rate is
3
currently $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR. Previous adjustments to the CIL rate have considered
the raw water supply situation of Utilities at the time, including factors such as the market price
of Colorado-Big Thompson Project (“CBT”) units, the potential value of local water rights (e.g.,
Southside Ditches 1), and the goal to receive an appropriate mix of water rights and cash needed
to develop additional firm yield for development.
Among other things, changes to the CIL rate should consider the cost to acquire additional
storage capacity (e.g., Halligan Water Supply Project) and other facilities required to fully utilize
the Utilities water rights portfolio, the value of the existing water supply system, and developing
a methodology for easily updating the CIL rate.
Future Development
The amount of RWR needed to meet our future water supply needs includes calculating the
projected amount of future water use, determining the water rights and/or facilities needed to
meet that projected use, and adjusting the RWR to acquire the necessary supplies and/or
facilities.
Calculating the projected amount of future water use and expected RWR that will be turned in
depends on projected growth (both population and commercial/industrial). The Utilities’ water
service area population is projected to grow about 45,000 by the year 2065 (from the current
population of about 133,000 to about 178,000). Based on the current RWR schedules, this
projected growth is estimated to provide about 11,900 acre-feet of additional RWR that will be
turned in to Utilities. However, water use has significantly changed since the current RWR
schedules were developed.
Water Use Changes
The current RWR schedules are based on a 1983 study focused on relating actual water use
with the raw water requirements. The study analyzed annual water consumption data broken
into categories based on number of dwelling units, type of living structure, and equivalent lot
size (net total area of development divided by number of dwelling units). A linear formula was
then derived which could be used to project consumption on the basis of residential density
(number of units and size of lot), utilizing the same formula for both single-family and multi-
family developments. This projected consumption is the “expected use” for a particular type of
development.
Acknowledging the impacts of conservation on the City’s water consumption, Utilities staff
studied recent water use patterns for single-family, multi-family, and commercial developments.
The results of the study showed significantly lower water consumption for single-family and
multi-family developments over recent years, as compared to the expected use from the current
RWR calculations. Differences in water consumption for commercial developments were not as
significant, though changes were also present.
The differences in expected use versus recent actual use prompted staff to investigate possible
methods for updating the water use formulas in the RWR in order to better project expected use
for future developments.
1 The Southside Ditches include the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County Canal No. 2 and
Warren Lake Reservoir. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is another canal that runs through Fort
Collins and is sometimes considered a Southside Ditch.
4
Methods
To investigate recent trends in water consumption, the past 10 years (2006-2015) of monthly
water billing data was analyzed, broken out by single-family residential, multi-family residential,
and commercial developments. Utilizing 10 years of consumption data helps to capture climatic
variations, which can greatly affect water consumption across all development types. From the
outset, the data for different types of residential developments were analyzed separately, with
the anticipation that average consumption trends would differ between development types.
Further investigation into the use data and types of developments led to combining data for
duplexes with single-family developments.
Single-family/Duplex
Due in great part to successful conservation efforts, water consumption for single-family
residential customers has decreased. The current analysis shows a significant difference
between the average annual use per single-family home and the calculated expected use from
the current RWR equations. These differences are outlined in Table 1.
Multi-family
Due to the complexity of compiling and verifying water consumption data for multi-family
developments, which often include multiple buildings and irrigation taps, a representative
sample of developments were analyzed for this study.
Multi-family residential water use, which includes both indoor and outdoor use, has seen an
overall downward trend and the average annual use per unit is significantly lower than the
calculated expected use from the current RWR equations. Table 1 shows the average use per
unit, as well as the change from the expected use predicted from the current RWR equations.
Table 1. Summary of annual residential water use from 2006-2015.
Residential
Development
Type
Expected Use
per Unit
(gal/year)
Average Use
per Unit
(gal/year)
Fraction of
Expected Use
Single-
family/Duplex 130,840 96,640 74%
Multi-family 79,720 48,380 61%
In an effort to realign the RWR equations to more closely reflect current use patterns, multi-
variate regression models were utilized to investigate multiple variables (e.g., lot size, number of
units, building square footage, number of bathrooms, and number of bedrooms) and their ability
to predict water use. The results of the analyses suggest that the best models for predicting
water consumption for both single-family and multi-family residential developments are those
which include lot size and number of bedrooms. The correlation between number of bedrooms
and indoor water use was much greater than the current method based on number of units.
This analysis indicates that altering the current RWR schedules would more accurately reflect
current residential water use patterns, as well as more equitably distribute those requirements
across the range of development types and sizes by better reflecting actual water use.
Proposed alterations to the residential RWR schedule include separate equations for single-
family (and duplex) and multi-family residential developments, as well as modifying the equation
5
to reflect expected use as a function of number of bedrooms and lot size. These changes would
reduce the volume of water required under the RWR for the average residential development.
Commercial
Finally, the analysis considered non-residential (or commercial) water use. An analysis of non-
residential water use from 1981-2015 showed that non-residential water use increased by
roughly 35% shortly after the 1980s water use study, but has trended back downward since
then.
Non-residential water use can vary widely by the type of business (even for the same tap size).
For instance, a restaurant would be expected to use more water than a hardware store, even
though they may occupy otherwise similar commercial spaces of equal size and are connected
to Utilities with the same tap size. It would be administratively difficult for Utilities or developers
to accurately estimate each non-residential development type’s water use, especially as that
use can change over time as businesses evolve and come and go on a particular property.
Each of the most common tap sizes from 0.75-inch to 2-inch thus have a set RWR volume2.
The current method of a set RWR volume for the smaller tap sizes maintains equity across
different types of water users for a single tap size by setting an allotment for a maximum
allowed amount of water use, and then applying a surcharge rate for use beyond the allotment.
The allotment is based on 80% of the average use for a tap size. This method provides a
baseline that encourages water conservation, while still allowing customers to pay for additional
RWR for greater amounts of water use. This method also recognizes that a small number of
high water-use businesses pull up the overall average use of all customers in that tap size.
Consequently, by using 80% of the average, the numerous businesses that use much less than
the average are not penalized. Funds acquired from the surcharge rate applied to use over the
allotment are used to acquire more water supplies. This methodology is still applicable to
current commercial development and is recommended to be continued.
Table 2 shows the average annual water use by tap size, the expected use predicted by the
1980s study and used in the current calculation of RWR, as well as the fraction of expected use.
The table shows that non-residential water use was less than expected for the 1-inch, 1.5-inch,
and 2-inch taps, but the 0.75-inch, was near expected. Since RWR for non-residential
development is determined by tap size, the RWR could be adjusted by the fraction of expected
use to reflect the change in water use over time.
Table 2. Summary of annual, non-residential water use from 2006-2015.
Tap Size
(inches)
Expected Use
(gallons/year)
Average Use
(gallons/year)
Fraction of
Expected Use (%)
0.75 191,000 190,000 100%
1.0 636,000 479,000 75%
1.5 1,273,000 1,002,000 79%
2.0 2,037,000 1,678,000 82%
Suggested RWR Adjustments
2 The RWR for a customer needing a tap larger than 2-inch or multiple taps is established by the
customer’s estimate of peak annual use. These customers are not common and tend to be large,
established business. It is thus far less difficult for Utilities and the customer to accurately estimate the
peak annual use for these customers.
6
Single Family/Duplex RWR (acre-feet)
=1.92 × 7.048 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿.) + 12,216.9 × 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 (#)325,851(𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑓𝑓)
Multi-Family (>2 units) RWR (acre-feet)
=1.92 × 9.636 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿.) + 13,592.8 × 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 (#)325,851(𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑓𝑓)
Given the changes in water use from the expected amount per the current RWR calculations, it
is recommended that the RWR calculations be adjusted to reflect the information provided
above. Making these changes will reduce the overall projected amount of expected RWR the
Utilities will receive in the next 50 years from about 11,900 acre-feet to about 7,700 acre-feet.
More specifically, it is recommended the RWR calculations be changed to the following:
Commercial RWR (acre-feet) =
¾-inch tap: 0.90 AF
1-inch tap: 2.26 AF
1 ½-inch tap: 4.72 AF
2-inch tap: 7.91 AF
‘> 2-inch tap: case-by-case
Water Supply Needs
In order to meet the projected water supply needs of future growth, Utilities projects the need for
new infrastructure and some additional water rights. The largest part of the new infrastructure
would be acquisition of additional storage capacity through the Halligan Water Supply Project.
This additional storage at an enlarged Halligan Reservoir would meet a large portion of the
projected future demands by storing existing water rights (and water rights to be acquired in the
future) during wet times for use during dry times 3.
Other infrastructure that is projected to be needed by 2065 includes being part of facilities
required to fully utilize the Utilities’ recently changed Water Supply and Storage Company
shares and potential future measuring devices and by-pass facilities on the Poudre River as part
of requirements for utilizing some of the Utilities water rights. Utilities also projects a longer term
need (by 2065) for some additional water rights to complement the additional storage capacity.
Adding the new infrastructure and water rights to the water supply portfolio will increase the
Utilities’ firm yield about 7,800 acre-feet, from the existing firm yield of 30,800 acre-feet to about
38,600 acre-feet. This boost in firm yield will meet the expected future growth for the Utilities
water service area mentioned above. The new infrastructure is estimated to cost approximately
3 It should be noted that an alternative to the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir that meets the Utilities
future needs could be selected by the Army Corps of Engineers as part of the permitting process.
7
$63.9 million and the additional water rights about $25.5 million, both of which include a 25
percent contingency and total about $89.4 million.
Other Costs for Increasing Firm Yield
In addition to the new infrastructure and water rights mentioned above, future Utilities customers
will benefit from the existing water supply portfolio. Alone, acquiring the new infrastructure and
water rights mentioned above would not provide adequate water supplies needed for those
future customers. In order to fairly charge the new customers, a value for a portion of the
existing water rights portfolio needed to be determined. Adding the new infrastructure and water
rights will increase the Utilities’ water supply firm yield from 30,800 to 38,600 acre-feet. This
7,800 acre-foot increase equals 20.2 percent of the future firm yield. It can be assumed that
20.2 percent of the existing firm yield (or 6,224 acre-feet) will be needed by the future customers
to achieve the needed 7,800 acre-foot increase in firm yield. Applying the long-standing CIL rate
of $6,500 per acre-foot to the 6,224 acre-feet, results in a value of the portion of the existing
portfolio that can be utilized by new development of about $40.5 million.
Combining the costs of the new infrastructure and water rights needed with the value of the
existing water supply portfolio gives the total cost to increase the firm yield for new development
(or redevelopment) of approximately $129.9 million.
Cash Only Considerations
It is imperative that the RWR become a “cash only” system. This would mean no longer
accepting water rights to meet the RWR. However, the existing City-issued water certificates, as
well as credits from previously satisfied RWR, will still be accepted.
This cash only system would recognize the importance of acquiring additional storage capacity
(which cannot be turned in to meet the RWR), since such storage capacity increases our
supplies by making existing (and future) water rights available during dry times. Utilities will
need to focus on specific water rights in the future to avoid inefficient rights that are ineffective in
our water supply system. In a cash only system, water rights could still be purchased by Utilities
and focus would be given to the best water rights for our water supply system. It should be
noted that Utilities plans to focus use of the cash received on infrastructure first (particularly
additional storage), since it efficiently and economically provides for reliable water supplies. In
addition, accepting cash only would provide flexibility to pursue other water supply options in the
future, which could include regionally collaborative projects.
Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) Rate Changes
BBC Research and Consulting (“BBC”), which has expertise in fee and rate analyses, was hired
to review the RWR system and the CIL rate. Utilities took the information provided by BBC to
consider options for changes to the RWR system and CIL rate.
As part of their study, BBC was asked to evaluate the value of the Utilities’ water supply
portfolio. BBC did this by considered an equity buy-in approach for a CIL rate adjustment, where
they valued the Utilities existing and future water supply system to be worth between $1.3 and
$1.5 billion. Dividing that total system value by the future firm yield of the water supply system of
approximately 38,600 acre-feet determines the equity buy-in value of the water supply system.
Using the low end of the total system value ($1.3 billion) results in an equity buy-in amount of
8
about $36,800 per acre-feet of RWR. This would be an amount to “plug into” the Utilities water
supply system and approximates what it would cost to acquire those supplies today.
BBC also helped Utilities consider other approaches for a CIL rate adjustment. The other main
option was an incremental cost approach, which considers only the costs of future water supply
needs. Because the existing water rights portfolio includes water rights which will be more
effectively utilized through the development of water storage and thereby will provide some
water to future growth, this approach does not accurately reflect the total costs for development
and would under collect the anticipated cost of developing the required water supply system.
Ultimately, BBC helped Utilities identify a hybrid approach that combined elements of the equity
buy-in approach and an incremental cost approach. This hybrid approach involves looking at the
value of existing water supply portfolio (as discussed above), the costs of future water supply
needs and dividing this cost by the firm yield those future water supplies provide. Using the total
costs of approximately $129.9 million, divided by the additional 7,800 acre-feet of firm yield
provided, results in a hybrid approach value of about $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR.
Principles of Impact Fees
As staff investigated potential options for changes to the RWR system and the CIL rate, the
following principles of impact fees for new development or redevelopment were followed
• Growth should pay its own way. This means the impacts of the development should be
paid for by the development and not by existing ratepayers via increased rates.
• The impact fee should charge only the cost of mitigating the impact. For example, setting
the CIL to the market value of local water rights could result in charging more than is
needed.
• Adding the development should be done while maintaining the current level of service,
with little to no impact to existing rate-paying customers.
RWR and CIL Rate Changes: Options Explored
Several options for changing the RWR system and the CIL rate were explored. The criteria used
in considering these options included whether the option met the principles of impact fees (as
explained above), was financially sustainable, and was defensible. Financial sustainability
means that it will generate adequate funds to acquire the future water supply needs of the
development, as well as having a reasonable and easily reproducible methodology for acquiring
the funds. Lastly, defensibility is important to avoid potential risks associated with the
methodologies used in any option.
The following is a brief description of the different options or approaches that were investigated
for changing the RWR system and CIL rate, including whether the option met the criteria
mentioned above. With the exception of the first option (Status Quo), all options include going to
a cash only RWR/CIL system.
Status Quo: This option would involve not changing anything, including the RWR calculations,
the current $6,500 CIL rate or going to a cash only system. This option does not meet any of the
criteria since it does not generate adequate funds, it burdens existing customers to pay for
future needs, and it asks for more water (RWR) than development needs.
Existing RWR, Adjust CIL: This option would involve leaving the RWR calculations the same
and adjusting the CIL rate by dividing the costs of our total future needs by the projected RWR
we expect. Although this option meets the financially sustainable criteria by generating the
9
necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply needs mentioned above, it does not meet
the other criteria since it asks for more water (RWR) than development needs.
Equity buy-in approach: This option would involve adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above and adjusting the CIL rate to the equity buy-in amount of $36,800 as
explained above. Although this option partially meets the financially sustainable criteria by
generating the necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply needs mentioned above, it
is based on a replacement cost of the entire water supply system. As such, it is not defensible
as it would acquire more funds than needed.
Modified equity buy-in approach: This option would involve adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above and adjusting the CIL rate to an amount that would only generate the
necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply needs mentioned above, thus meeting the
principles of impact fees and defensibility criteria. However, it does not require growth to fully
cover the cost of its impact on the water supply system.
Split fee approach: This option would also involve adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above. This option would involve creating a new, additional impact fee for the
necessary infrastructure needed for future water supplies, along with the current RWR fee for
the water rights needed (or available to developers through existing City water certificates or
credits). A variation of this option (termed a Water Right Utilization Fee) was presented to City
Council during a September 24, 2013 work session. Although this option would meet most of
the criteria, it potentially would create disputed issues with the use of some of the City’s water
certificates and was thus not considered further.
Incremental cost approach: This option involves adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above and adjusting the CIL rate based on only the incremental costs to acquire
the future water supply needs. However, because of the City’s outstanding water certificates
and credits, this approach does not recognize the value of these credits to the new development
and also would not generate adequate funds.
Hybrid approach: This option involves adjusting the RWR calculations as recommended above
and adjusting the CIL rate based on the incremental costs to meet the future water supply
needs, along with a charge to future customers for the value of a portion of the Utilities’ existing
water supply portfolio. This option meets all the criteria used, thus it is the recommended option.
Rate increases to maintain lower CIL: This option would actually involve using one of the other
options (e.g., hybrid approach), but lowering or phasing in the CIL rate to avoid high
development costs. However, this option does not meet the principles of impact fees criteria
since it doesn’t have growth pay its own way and burdens existing customers with the cost of
the future water needs.
Proposed Changes to the RWR and CIL Rate
Given the information provided above, and consulting with BBC on various aspects of the RWR
system and CIL rate, the best option is to use a hybrid approach. This approach would include
changing the RWR calculations as suggested above. The CIL rate for this hybrid approach
would be $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR. This CIL rate can be compared with about $50,000 per
acre-foot of firm yield from the CBT project, which uses an average cost of $25,000 per CBT
unit and a firm yield of 0.5 acre-feet per unit (under drought conditions).
RWR/CIL Comparisons
10
Table 4 shows information for the status quo (no changes) and the proposed hybrid approach,
including the assumed RWR amounts, CIL rates and cost for typical developments. Although
the proposed changes to the RWR schedules and CIL rates are related to impact fees specific
to the Utilities water service area, a comparison with other northern Colorado water providers for
single family homes and 1-inch taps are provided in Figures 1 and 2 (for illustrative purposes
only).
Table 4 – Fort Collins Utilities Raw Water Requirements (RWR) for Typical Developments
Development Type Status Quo
(CIL=$6,500/AF)
Hybrid Approach
(CIL=$16,700/AF)
Single family, 4br, 6,000 sq ft lot
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 0.66 0.54
Total Cost, $: $4,309 $8,970
Multi-family, 100 units
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 42.49 23.33
Total Cost, $: $276,210 $389,674
Unit Cost, $/unit: $2,762 $3,896.74
Commercial Tap: 0.75"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 0.90 0.90
Total Cost, $: $5,850 $15,070
Commercial Tap: 1.0"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 3.00 2.27
Total Cost, $: $19,500 $37,836
Commercial Tap: 1.5"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 6.00 4.72
Total Cost, $: $39,000 $78,877
Commercial Tap: 2.0"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 9.60 7.91
Total Cost, $: $62,400 $132,104
11
Figure 1
Figure 2
$4,300
$9,000
$11,800
$13,000
$13,200
$14,200
$25,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
Status Quo
Hybrid Approach
Loveland
NWCWD
Greeley
ELCO
FCLWD
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for Typical Single Family Home in Northern
Colorado
12
Future RWR/CIL Adjustments
It is recommended that the CIL rate be reviewed biennially, along with the other City biennial fee
review process, and adjusted as needed to reflect changes to construction costs 4, water rights
and projected RWR (related to growth projections).
It is recommended that the RWR schedules should be reviewed every 5 to 7 years and changed
if necessary, since changes to average water use are usually the result of long-term water
conservation and thus less volatile than the factors underlying the CIL rate. This review would
assess any potential changes in consumption, investigate the appropriateness of predictor
variables, and if necessary, reflect any changes in updated equations. It is also recommended
to utilize the previous 10 years of data when performing these updates.
Outreach
Utilities staff presented this issue to the Water Board on October 6, 2016. Based on input from
their meeting, Utilities staff postponed an October 25, 2016 City Council work session until after
presenting to the Council Finance Committee. Staff is currently working on scheduling
presentations for gathering input from stakeholder groups like the Fort Collins Chamber of
Commerce, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association.
Also, similar outreach to City boards and commissions such as the Water Board, Economic
Advisory Commission, and the Affordable Housing Board will be conducted based on the
direction given at the City Council work session on February 14. The input gathered from the
4 It should be noted that the current estimate of future infrastructure needs includes the projected costs for
the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, but that alternatives to the Halligan Reservoir enlargement that
might be selected through the Halligan Water Supply Project permitting process could cost substantially
more – and thus, there could be a need to increase the CIL rate accordingly.
$19,500
$30,600
$37,800
$62,500
$64,000
$101,100
$105,000
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
Status Quo
NWCWD
Hybrid Approach
FCLWD
Greeley
ELCO
Loveland
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 1" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
13
outreach efforts will be provided as part of the final City Council actions that will be required for
adoption of changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
• Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
• Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to ~$16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
• Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits) for RWR
satisfaction
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
In addition, it is recommended the name of this Utilities development fee be change in City
Code from Raw Water Requirements to “Water Supply Requirements”, since developing
adequate and reliable water supplies requires more than just acquiring “raw water”.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present this issue to the City Council at the February 14 work session. Staff will
consider City Council input and conduct additional public outreach prior to returning to City
Council for final approval of the changes to the RWR and CIL, which is likely to occur in the next
several months.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map
2) Residential Raw Water Requirements (RWR) Schedule
3) Non-Residential Raw Water Requirements (RWR) Schedule
4) Water Rights and Conversion Factors Accepted by the City for Satisfaction of RWR
5) Glossary of Water Resources Terms
6) Presentation
Page 1 of 4
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
222 Laporte Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
V/TDD 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 19, 2018
TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
FROM: Carol Webb, Deputy Director, Water Resources and Treatment Operations
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Concerns from Water Utility Customers re: Excess Water Use Surcharges:
Additional Information and Status
______________________________________________________________________________
This memo addresses concerns raised by some commercial account Water Utility customers
(primarily home owner associations “HOAs”) regarding an increase in excess water use
surcharges (“surcharges”) that are billed when they exceed their annual water allotment
(“allotment”). The surcharge increases followed Ordinance No. 116, 2017, which increased the
surcharge rate.
This memo follows a previous memo on these issues: Memorandum, RE: Response and Next
Steps Related to Concerns from Water Utility Customers Regarding Change to Water Supply
Requirements and Resulting Increases in Excess Water Use Surcharges, November 1, 2018. This
memo provides additional information and a discussion of the status of work on possible
solutions.
BOTTOM LINE:
Surcharges are intended to ensure that the Water Utility recovers enough revenue to provide a
reliable water supply (e.g. costs for water rights or storage). Surcharges were increased on
January 1, 2018 when City Council made modifications to Water Supply Requirements.
Some commercial account Water Utility customers have been particularly impacted by the
increased surcharge rates. Utilities staff is working to help these customers in several ways,
including developing a program to allow for a temporary waiver of the surcharges for certain
impacted customers that are taking steps to address the underlying issues causing use in excess
of their allotments. The program will require changes to City Code.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D551E68-26B5-4685-8772-356358DE889E
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION:
Rationale for Surcharge Rate
In Ordinance No. 116, 2017 (which was effective January 1, 2018), City Council approved
various changes to the Water Supply Requirements (formerly Raw Water Requirements) and the
surcharge rate. The surcharge rate increased from $3.06 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment to
$8.14 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment.
A commercial customer’s allotment is determined at the time of application for a water service
permit. For tap sizes between ¾” and 2”, the allotment is indicated in City Code Section 26-
149(b). For taps larger than 2” and for customers requiring two or more meters, the allotment is
calculated based on considering an approved estimate of peak annual use. Surcharges are to be
billed to commercial and irrigation tap customers when they exceed their allotment in a given
year.
The surcharge rate is distinct from the user rate. The user rate is structured to recover costs for
operations and maintenance of the Water Utility system. The surcharge rate is structured to
ensure that the Water Utility recovers enough revenue to provide a reliable water supply (e.g.
costs for water rights or storage). The surcharge rate is based on the current cash-in-lieu rate
because that is the current cost for the provision of a reliable water supply. If this revenue is not
recovered through surcharges, the cost of service will be shifted to all customers through
increases in user rates.
Impacts to Certain Commercial Account Water Utility Customers with Allotments
Some commercial account Water Utility customers have been particularly impacted by the
increased surcharge rates. The circumstances of commercial account customers that have
regularly been exceeding their allotments generally fall into four categories:
• Category 1: Historically Paying Surcharges with Reduced Future Use. Some customers
have historically exceeded their allotments and paid surcharges but have appropriately
size taps and allotments. These customers have the opportunity to avoid future surcharges
by reducing their water use while still maintaining their current landscape.
• Category 2: Historically Paying Surcharges with Landscape Changes or Fee Payments.
Some customers that have historically exceeded their allotments and paid surcharges but
appear to have water taps and allotments that were undersized for their demand. These
customers will need to either make significant changes to their landscape to reduce their
use or pay a significant sum of money in additional Water Supply Requirement cash-in-
lieu fees to increase their allotment to their demand and avoid future surcharges.0F
1
1 Utilities Staff is working with staff from the Planning Department to address the issue of undersized taps going
forward (Categories 2 and 4), to help ensure that such irrigation taps are not undersized in future developments.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D551E68-26B5-4685-8772-356358DE889E
Page 3 of 4
• Category 3: Historically Not Paying Surcharges with Reduced Future Use. Some
customers appear to not have historically been billed for the surcharges they should have
incurred and thus are now subject to future surcharges. Most of these customers will be
able to reduce use to avoid surcharges, however may need time to make these changes.
• Category 4: Historically Not Paying Surcharges with Landscape Changes or Fee
Payments. Some customers that have not been historically billed and also have water
taps and allotments that are undersized for their demand. These customers will need to
make significant changes to their landscape to reduce their use or pay a significant sum of
money in additional Water Supply Requirement cash-in-lieu fees to increase their
allotment to their demand and avoid future surcharges.
Customer Outreach and Support
Utilities staff conducted outreach to potentially-impacted customers in the lead up to Ordinance
No. 116, 2017 to assist them in reducing their water use. However, a subset of existing Water
Utility commercial customer accounts that are expected to be impacted by the ordinance and the
associated increase in the surcharge rate were not notified of the changes through this pre-agenda
public outreach process in as timely a manner that Utilities staff would have preferred.
Several of these customers (particularly HOAs) have expressed concerns related to the impact
the changes in the Water Supply Requirements and the associated increase in surcharges will
have on their budgets.
Utilities staff are providing extensive support to these and other customers to help them
understand their watering needs and to consider landscape changes to reduce their use. As
discussed above, many customers may reduce their use and avoid surcharges by implementing
relatively small changes in their water use. Some customers, however, need to consider
significant changes (which may require significant investment) to reduce their water use.
The Utilities Executive Director has sought to delay the effective date of surcharge rate increase
for these customers until January 2019 to allow the customers an opportunity to reduce their
water use, however this may not be adequate time for some customers to implement the
necessary changes and to make strategic and budgeting decisions on these items. Staff is also
evaluating potential incentive programs (grants, rebates, on-bill financing, etc.) to help customers
make significant changes in their water use, with some options requiring additional funding.
Next Steps
Utilities staff is working to develop a program to provide certain customers with a temporary
exemption to surcharges provided that they meet certain criteria. The current draft criteria in
development and subject to change is as follows:
• The customer has historically never received excess water use fees but has been
identified as being eligible to receive excess water fees based on their original water
service permit(s).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D551E68-26B5-4685-8772-356358DE889E
Page 4 of 4
• The customer is expected to exceed their allotment based on their historical use.
• The customer submits a satisfactory plan to reduce their landscape water use (e.g. will not
overwater based on their landscape needs or will commit to converting to a lower water
use landscape).
• If applying for an extension to purchase more water, the customer must have an allotment
that is undersized for the property.
Under the draft program being developed, customers that meet the criteria could apply for a
temporary surcharge exemption by submitting a plan to address water use and/or plan to pay to
increase allotment. Staff would determine eligibility and the duration of the extension for each
customer based on the information submitted (not to exceed two years). Staff would provide
resources to participating customers and would perform a post-project assessment to confirm the
project has been completed. Customers would only receive exemption from surcharges if they
apply for the exemption. If a customer were to not complete any part of the application process,
surcharges incurred during the time of the extension would be back-billed to the customer.
Implementing the program above will facilitate water conservation as well as reduce the overall
cost of service to these customers.
In order to implement the proposed program outlines above, City Code would need to be
changed. Utilities staff is working with the City Attorney’s Office on the program and such
potential Code changes.
It should be noted that staff continues to provide significant support to all customers who are
receiving surcharges to help them reduce their water use.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D551E68-26B5-4685-8772-356358DE889E
1
Abbye Neel, Liesel Hans, Carol Webb
February 25, 2019
Allotment Management Program
(AMP)
Agenda
•Background
•Customer Impact
•Customer Outreach & Feedback
•Allotment Management Program
•Next Steps
2
Direction Sought
1.What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee
have regarding the proposed Allotment Management Program?
2.Does the Council Finance Committee support the proposed
program and recommend bringing the item to City Council for
adoption?
3
Strategic Alignment
4
Environmental Health
•4.5 –Develop strategies to improve the community’s climate
resiliency
•4.6 –Provide a reliable, high-qualify water supply
High Performing Government
•7.1 –Provide world-class municipal services to residents and businesses
Water Efficiency Plan and Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy
•Reduce water use to 130 gallons per capita per day by 2030
Background
5
AMP
Development
Data
Accuracy
Ongoing
Communications
Water Supply Requirements
(Formally Raw Water Requirements)
•Dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights to the Water Utility to
provide reliable water supply service to the customer
•Last update –Sept 2017
6
Mid-1960s to Mid-1984
WSR based on total acreage
developed (e.g. 1 acre
required 3 acre-feet of water).
Starting Mid-1984
WSR based on acreage developed and the estimated
water use for the development type.
Commercial Water Allotments
Allotment
•Annual volume of water a tap
can use before being subject
to Excess Water Use fees
•Increased from $12,500 to
$33,400 per acre foot
7
Excess Water Use Fee
•Fee applied to all water
used over the allotment for
Utility to purchase
additional water rights
and/or infrastructure
•Increased from $3.06 to
$8.14 per 1,000 gallons
over the allotment
Excess Water Use Fee
+ $8.14 per 1,000 gal
For all use over allotment for
the remainder of the
calendar year.
Commercial Water Allotments
8
Allotment
is
exceeded.
Regular Use Rates
Summer: $2.81 per 1,000 gal
Winter: $3.23 per 1,000 gal
Commercial Water Allotments
9
•34% of commercial accounts have
an allotment (~1,200)
•11% of commercial accounts
typically receive Excess Water Use
Fees (~350/year)
•3% of commercial account receive
Excess Water Use Fees over
$2,000 (~100/year)
Customer Impact
10
1.Inefficient Use
2.Change in Use Type (e.g.
gas station converted to a
restaurant)
3.Allotment is not sized
correctly for the use type
(e.g. tap’s allotment is not
large enough given the
property’s efficient water
need
Average Landscape
Need
Average Annual
Water Use
Allotment
Need > Allotment
EWU
Fees
Customer Outreach & Feedback
11
Dramatic Cost Increase
•166% Increase
•Average EWU Fees: $4,700
Not enough time to prepare or factor into budgets
•No customer notified more than six months prior to
implementation
Frustration when allotment is not sized correctly
for use type
Rationale
12
Franklin HOA
Need: 6.7 millions gallons
Allotment: 3.1 million gallons
Excess Water Use Fees: $25K
Option 1
Pay $25K in Excess
Water Use Fees
each year
Option 2
Pay $366,000 to
increase
allotment
Option 3
Pay $75K over three years to
convert 6 acres of land to lower
water need to 2.8 million gallons
AMP -Structure
13
Eligible customers submit an application with plan for long-term, permanent
water reduction.
Staff determines if customer and project qualify.
If project qualifies, customer receives a temporary exemption from excess
water use fees for a predetermined period of time to implement water saving project.
Customers who do not complete project will be billed for any applicable excess water use fees.
Allotment Management Program (AMP)
AMP -Rationale
14
Option 1
Pay $10K in Excess
Water Use Fees each
year
Option 2
Pay $122,000 to
increase allotment
Option 3 -AMP
Redirect 10K of EWU to
fund $22K conversion of
2.5 acres of land
Smith HOA
Need: 2.0 million gallons
Allotment: 3.2 million gallons
Excess Water Use Fees: 10K
AMP -Benefits
15
Creates solution for group of affected
customers
Increases community’s drought
resiliency and conservation ethic
Cost-effective way to reduce volume of
water not accounted for at development
AMP -Risks
16
Number that
Exceed Their
Allotment
Program Impact
(est. using 2018 Excess
Water Use Fees)
Commercial
Customers 350 $1.2 Million
Customers with over
$2,000 in fees 156 $1.1 Million
Engaged Customers 48 $368,339
•Total Commercial Customers: ~3,500
•Total Commercial Customers with Allotment: ~1,200
17
Timeline / Next Steps
Data
acquisition, analysis, and program
development
WaterBoard
Work Session,
Direction to
Proceed (Y)
Customer &
Stakeholder Outreach and Feedback,
Supportive of Proposal
CFC Presentation, Direction to
proceed (Y/N)
Natural
Resource
Advisory Board
Program LaunchCity CouncilWater Board
Action Item
Economic
Health Advisory
Board
2018
March 21, 2018 Tentative: April 16
2018
Feb 25, 2018Dec 20, 2018 Jan -Feb 2018
March 20, 2018 Tentative: June
2019
March 20, 2018
Direction Sought
1.What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee
have regarding the proposed Allotment Management Program?
2.Does the Council Finance Committee support the proposed
program and recommend bringing the item to City Council for
adoption?
18
Advisory Groups and Presentations
19
Boards and Commissions
•Water Board
•Natural Resources Advisory Board
•Economic Health Advisory Board
•Council Finance Committee
Key Stakeholders
•Community stakeholder group
comprised of customers that exceed
their allotment
•Certified Landscape Professionals
•Affected City Departments: Parks,
Natural Areas, Forestry, Planning
and Development
THANK YOU!
NOTE: Utilities will continue presentations
through March 2019