HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 07/15/2019 -
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
July 15, 2019
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the June 17, 2019 Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. 2018 Audit Results 30 minutes T. Storin
2. EPIC External Borrowing Terms / Details 30 minutes J. Phelan
S. Carpenter
3. Northfield Metro District Application 30 minutes J. Birks
4. Sports Complex Evaluation 30 minutes W. Williams
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2019
RVSD 07/08/19 mnb
July 15P
th
P
2018 Audit Results 30 min T. Storin
EPIC External Borrowing Terms/Details 30 min J. Phelan
S. Carpenter
Northfield Metro District Application 30 min J. Birks
Sports Complex Evaluation 30 min W. Williams
Aug 19P
th
P
2018 Fund Balance Review 20 min T. Storin
2020 Budget Revision Review 30 min L. Pollack
Comprehensive 2019 Fee Updates 30 min J. Poznanovic
Potential New Revenue Discussion 30 min J. Poznanovic
Sep 16P
th
P
2019 Annual Adjustment Ordinance 15 min L. Pollack
Financial Policy Review & Updates 20 min J. Voss
Oct 21st
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Development Fee Update - TBD
• Park/Median Design Standards & Maintenance Costs - TBD
• Utility LTFP & CIP - Nov
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
06/17/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Mike Beckstead, Jackie Thiel, Kevin Gertig, Lance
Smith, Travis Storin, John Voss, Don Klingler, Noelle Currell, Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Kristin
Fritz, John Duval, Tyler Marr, Jo Cech, Katie Ricketts, Zach Mozer, Carolyn Koontz,
Bob Adams, Marc Rademacher
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:09 am
Approval of Minutes from the May 20, 2019 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ken Summers moved for approval
of the minutes as presented. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Mason Place Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
Noelle Currell, Manager, FP&A
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy and Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Affordable Housing Fee Waiver Request for Mason Place, a permanent supportive housing community.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Housing Catalyst (HC), formerly known as the Fort Collins Housing Authority, has requested that certain
development and capital improvement expansion fees be waived for all 60 qualifying units at Mason Place. In
March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which fee waivers may be requested and made these
waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for
households whose income falls at or below 30% of the area median income of all City residents. HC is
requesting fee waivers in the approximate amount of $325,000 for the 60 qualifying units at Mason Place.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee (CFC) support granting the fee waiver request?
2. If CFC desires the Capital Expansion Fees to be backfilled, should this funding come from General Fund
Reserves only, or from both General Fund Reserves and the Affordable Housing Capital Fund?
2
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
HC is seeking the waiver of certain development and capital improvement expansion fees for Mason Place, an
affordable housing project as allowed by City Code and the Land Use Code. Mason Place is currently under
development and will deliver 60 income restricted units, all of which will be targeted to households making no
more than 30% of the area median income (AMI). The request from HC is attached as attachment 1. While HC
will be the ultimate owner of the building, it is being developed by Housing Catalyst LLC and any fee waiver
granted would be to Mason Place LLLP, which is the ownership entity for the tax credit partnership.
Fee Waiver History:
For many years, the City provided affordable housing fee waivers for some building permit fees, development
review fees and some capital expansion fees as an incentive to encourage the development of affordable
housing.
• In March 2013, City Council amended its policies on fee waivers for affordable housing to allow for more
discretion in determining the kinds of housing projects for which City fees should be waived.
• This was after a large waiver was granted.
• By adopting Ordinance No. 37, 2013, City Council limited eligibility of fee waivers to the local housing
authority and limited what types of units would qualify for fee waivers. Only projects that are constructed
for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income is no greater than 30% of the area
median income of all City residents qualify.
• Furthermore, waivers were made discretionary by City Council upon a determination that the proposed
waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital
improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought.
• This policy was changed by City Council in 2017 so that any developer providing qualifying units is eligible to
seek discretionary fee waivers.
• Staff has been working on improving the method of processing requests for fee waivers. In addition to
working with the applicant to confirm fee amounts, the process allows for the percentage of eligible units to
be approved even before the fee amounts are finalized. However, if the waiver request is processed when
fee amounts are final, the waiver approval can be for both the percentage of qualifying units and the fee
amount. The process allows the applicant to decide on the timing of the fee waiver request. This only makes
a difference in how the City handles the reimbursement of capital expansion fees and does not influence the
project being constructed.
Current Request:
Mason Place is a 60-unit affordable housing community being constructed at 3750 South Mason Street in Fort
Collins. See attachment 2 for map of location. The developer is HC. The total development of 60 units, will be
dedicated to households making no more than 30% AMI. This will be a permanent supportive housing
development where people can live for an unlimited term and be provided on site supportive services to help
tenants achieve and sustain housing stability. This is a best practice for housing persons experiencing chronic
homelessness, most of whom have disabilities too.
HC is seeking the waiver of certain fees for those 60 qualifying units. The total fees for this $18.7 million
development project are estimated to be in excess of $656,000. The request is for 100% of eligible fees, about
$325,000 (currently calculated at $324,714), to be waived. Of that amount, about $264,000 (currently calculated
at $263,244) are for capital expansion fees which the City has traditionally reimbursed. This project is adaptive
reuse and not new construction, so the fees are offset with fees previously collected for this location and are
therefore not as high as a new construction project would be. Because the plans for this development could still
3
change slightly, HC has requested that Council approve the percentage to be waived at this time. The fee
amounts are not expected to change significantly, but by approving the percentage, more time is provided to
finalize the fee amounts.
The 2019 income limits published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 30% of the
Fort Collins AMI is $18,350 for a household of 1 and $20,950 for a household of 2. The units at Mason Place will
be primarily one-bedroom units with a few two-bedroom units. Households at this income level are some of the
City’s most vulnerable residents. Most of the residents will be escaping homelessness and have disabilities. All
units at Mason Place are eligible for fee waivers as established by City Code, and the Land Use Code.
The City has established affordable housing production goals in the 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(Plan). The need for financial support for these goals to be met is also stated in the Plan. The annual production
goal for the current 5-year plan is 188 units. This project will deliver 60 units which is 32% of the City’s current
annual goal. Since the City does not develop housing, development partners are relied upon to bring this
necessary housing product to the community. This project will increase the inventory of affordable rental units
and is targeting special needs populations - which are two of the strategies listed in the Plan.
It is recommended that any capital expansion fees waived be subject to backfill by the City to reimburse city
departments for fees if this waiver is granted, as has been the City’s custom to date. Traditionally backfill of
capital expansion fees occurred and has come from General Fund reserves. Alternatively, funds for this request
could come from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund that was approved by the voters as part of the City Capital
Improvements Program. This fund will accumulate $4 million over ten years. While most of the current balance
in this fund is already committed to this project, $100,00 was withheld for the purpose of matching general fund
reserves for fee waiver backfill. This project is the first to seek fee waivers this year.
Board and staff support:
• The Affordable Housing Board supports this waiver request. The City’s waiver policy has greatly limited the
types of projects that qualify for waivers. This policy recognizes that households earning no more than 30%
AMI cannot afford market rate housing in our City at this time. The average rent is currently over $1,200 a
month. A one-person household at 30% AMI would need to pay 78% of their income to pay the average
rent. Ideally, renters would never pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Developers need public
subsidy to produce housing that this demographic can afford.
• Staff also supports granting this waiver request.
Next Steps
• This request is ready to be presented to Council after this committee’s review.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
First Fee Waiver request of 2019 - total waivable fees $325K - not to exceed $330K to make sure we have some
flexibility - Backfill Amount - $264K - Total Fees = $686K (correction from slide showing $656K)
Mike Beckstead; Through 2018 we appropriated $700K through the CCIP dedicated support
$500K of that is still unspent and that amount is proposed to be dedicated to this project.
In 2019, we appropriated $400K from the CCIP – all will go to this project as well.
All total - just over $1M of support from the City for this project.
4
Fee waivers as investment - Direct subsidy - after competitive process if there is a gap - retain no more than 25%
of any fund balance for backfill – never an obligation to completely backfill but to help. We are requesting that
you approve the waiver of 100% of waivable fees. Affordable Housing Board has approved this request.
Ken Summers; can you review the support categories?
Sue Beck-Ferkiss;
Total of $1M City support
Fee Waivers = $325K
From Affordable Housing Capital Fund = $900K
Total is $1.2M between two awards
Competitive process – annual competition for CDBG home and affordable housing funds
Darin Atteberry; the most important information is that this is a cumulative ask - not just the one time ask
$1.3 - 1 .5M is the actual total - Council doesn’t remember all of these different pieces from 2017
Ken Summers; CDBG allocations we approved - this request is for fee waiver
Outside of what is available to Housing Catalyst - How does that work? We are being ask for a fee waiver
Sue Beck-Ferkiss; in 2018 Affordable Housing Capital Funds were committed to Housing Catalyst
CDBG funds were from 2018 and have been approved by Council
A lot of projects quality for the competitive process and would quality for the capital fund.
Only projects that target 30% AMI or less are eligible for waivers – additional incentive we have to build units for
lowest wage earners which don’t spin off rent income so more $$ are required – more subsidy on the front end.
Providing permanent support housing.
Kristin Fritz; Housing Catalyst
$876K committed by City Capital Fund
$1.1M competitive
Approx. $2M is the total commitment before the Fee Waivers
Mayor Troxell; the total project cost is $18.7M. How is this going to be financed?
Kristin Fritz; this is a competitive tax credit project and was awarded 9% tax credits on its first round
City funding commitment was prior to the tax credit award
Whether or not we received federal low-income tax credits
We received state money from Colorado Division of Housing
Selected a lender - all of the financing is fully awarded, and the underwriting due diligence is in progress and we
are scheduled to close on September 2P
nd
P - working its way through - fully funded - completely penciled out
It is typical with the City funding process – that after an award is made, we still need to go obtain the remaining
pieces and then go through a contracting process.
Mayor Troxell; Will the $18.7M will hold?
Kristin Fritz; Yes, that is ‘the’ number - we are committed to that number and under contract
5
Mayor Troxell; I am in favor - some of that background information regarding the overall investment -
hard to complete wrap around services - 0-30% AMI - tough crowd
Ross Cunniff; I sit on the Housing Catalyst Board - I do support taking the waivable fees out of the General Fund
other than out of the various Capital Expansion Fee buckets.
Mike Beckstead; for clarification - shared or 100% out of the General Fund?
Ross Cunniff; 100% out of the General Fund
Sue Beck-Ferkiss; would it all come from the General Fund reserve or should we use the money ($100K) we set
aside for this purpose?
Ken Summers; let’s use the money we set aside first then the remainder from the General Fund.
Mike Beckstead; I put the fees into 3 categories;
1) Utility PIFS - not being waived
2) Development Fees - waiver is requested - would not be backfilled
3) Capital Expansion Fees - $264K which would get backfilled
Ross Cunniff; trying to make the Development Review Fees like a dedicated fund - so that is the only thing they
are used for is Development Review – I would prefer it be portrayed as coming from General Fund reserves
because that is really what is happening.
ACTION ITEM:
In the future, I would like to find a structured way we can call these pre-application proposed rebates - other
than a waiver – still want to meet the timeline - with Housing Catalyst that could cause some financial stress.
IF we had a source of funding available for projects that pre quality – here is your predevelopment contingent
on it actually being built, etc. Being deliberate about setting aside money for these affordable housing purposes
and not making it look like we are playing some kind of shell game.
Council Finance Committee (Mayor Troxell, Ken Summers and Ross Cunniff) unanimously recommended that
this go forward to the full Council.
ACTION ITEM: Darin Atteberry; this looks like an approximate 10% City participation - to Mike - please work
with Jackie and Sue - it would be good to see where those trends are; trending up? trending down? What have
we done in prior projects? A macro perspective. I agree with what Wade and Ross both said, this is a great
project that will help with some serious needs. The complete stack is always important for Council.
Mike Beckstead; We will make sure both the complete stack and the trends are included in the Council
materials.
Ken Summers; what is rate contribution for residents? Do they pay on a sliding scale?
Sue Beck-Ferkiss; housing choice vouchers that are connected to these units - residents pay 30% of their income
and the government pays the rest up to the fair market standard.
6
B. 2020 Utility Rate Adjustments
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The revenue requirements to support the 2019-20 Biennial budget require increasing monthly charges for
electric service by 5.0% and stormwater service by 2.0% in each of those years. This was done in 2019. The
purpose of this discussion is to continue the dialogue with the Council Finance Committee ahead of bringing the
appropriate rate Ordinances forward to the full City Council in November.
The Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for each of the 4 traditional utility services (electric, water, wastewater
and stormwater) will be updated yet in 2019. The updated CIPs will then feed into updating the long-term
financial models that serve as the basis for the Strategic Financial Plans for each utility. These updated plans
along with the associated 10-year rate and debt issuance forecasts will be presented to the Council Finance
Committee in November, ahead of the 2021-22 Budgeting For Outcomes process.
The electric rate increase in 2020 is being driven by the ongoing effort to increase operating revenues for this
utility enterprise while managing operating expenses so as to generate positive operating income beginning in
2020.
The stormwater increase, as in 2019, is intended to raise operating revenues modestly to increase the debt
capacity of the Enterprise in anticipation of significant debt being needed to meet future capital improvements
necessary to complete the initial buildout of the stormwater infrastructure. Similar, modest adjustments of less
than 3% may be necessary over the coming decade depending on the timing and scale of the necessary capital
investments.
The Water and Wastewater cost of service studies are being updated for 2020 yet in 2019. It is preferable to
make any cost of service adjustments in years when there is no overall rate increase for a given utility necessary
in that same year. It is anticipated that there may be some adjustments between rate classes in order to meet
the 2020 revenue requirements for these two utilities.
From a residential customer perspective, the net increase to their 4 service utility bill is expected to be $3.91 per
month, or 2.3% more than they are paying in 2019.
7
As part of the City-wide effort to better align development fees, the plant investment fees associated with the 4
utility services are part of the 2019 Fee Update that is being presented to various boards and groups this
summer. The table below summarizes the adjustments to these fees for the 4 existing utility services
(for an 8600 square foot lot with a new 4-bedroom single family home).
The most significant increase being to the Water Supply Requirement. Continued escalation in the price of
water rights and the cost of building storage are driving this adjustment just 2 years after the previous
significant increase. The Excess Water Use Surcharge that some commercial customers are subject is also being
proposed to increase by 24% in 2020. The City Council approved the Allotment Management Program to begin
in 2020 in an attempt to reduce those impacted by this increase.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee support bringing the rate increases being proposed forward for
consideration by the Mayor and City Council?
Fort Collins Utilities
Average Residential Monthly Bill
Utility 2019 2020 $ Change % Change
Electric $75.56 $79.34 $3.60 5.0%
Water *$47.88 $47.88 $0.00 0.0%
Wastewater *$34.45 $34.45 $0.00 0.0%
Stormwater $15.73 $16.04 $0.31 2.0%
Total Average Bill $173.62 $177.71 $3.91 2.3%
* Water and Wastewater Cost of Service adjustments may be necessary in 2020.
8
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The 2016 Strategic Financial Plan for each utility was presented to this Committee through 3 meetings. The rate
strategy that was developed as part of the Strategic Financial Plans provides for objective rate adjustments
based on financial metrics. This strategy is included in the financial modeling for the plan and serves as the basis
of the rate projections presented to Council since 2016.
Rate Strategy and Smoothing
The following criteria objectively determine when, why and how much rates should be adjusted to maintain the
financial health of each utility:
1. Adjust electric rates sufficient to meet Platte River Power Authority wholesale rate adjustments.
2. If the previous 3 years have averaged negative operating income, raise rates next year to the lessor of
5% or the level sufficient to have offset the average operating loss.
3. If debt coverage is less than 2.0, increase rates the lessor of 5% and a level sufficient to raise the debt
coverage ratio to 2.1 the next year.
4. If the Available Reserve fund balance is projected to be negative at the end of any year, increase rates
the lessor of 5% and an amount sufficient to increase reserves to the minimum required reserve.
5. Add up all of the previous criteria driven rate adjustments and take the lessor of 5% and the sum as the
recommended rate adjustment.
By limiting the annual increase to no more than 5.0% in any given utility, the average customer should not see
an increase in their utility bill by more than 5% in one year. This constraint results in some smoothing of larger
rate increases over 2 or more years. Moreover, because the total utility bill is considered, adjustments in one
utility may be less than needed in order to smooth out the overall bill impact. In the 2017-18 Budget cycle, for
example, water rates were adjusted up 5.0% in each year while wastewater rates were increased 3.0% each
year.
Here the necessary electric rate increase is being smoothed out over the next 3 years. Also, because the water
and wastewater rates are not being adjusted this budget cycle, it is being proposed to adjust stormwater rates in
anticipation of significant debt issuances in the next decade.
Electric Rate Increase
The ten-year rate forecast presented to this Committee last November included 5.0% rate increases in 2019 and
2020 followed by lesser increases in the subsequent years. That forecast served as the basis for the 2017
Strategic Financial Plan for the Light & Power Enterprise Fund and the subsequent revenue projections utilized in
the development of the 2019-20 Budget cycle.
When this item was added to the Council Finance Committee agenda for June, the expectation was that Platte
River Power Authority (PRPA) would have taken formal action on the proposed 2020 wholesale rate structure
and rates at its May Board meeting. PRPA has since decided to not take formal action on the 2020 wholesale
rates until its October Board meeting. Preliminary direction was given at the May Board meeting as to the
expectation now that no wholesale rate increase will be proposed by PRPA for 2020. This will allow the 4
owning communities to adjust to the new wholesale rate structure without also realizing a rate increase in the
same year.
Looking at the operating income since 2009 shows that this Fund has utilized reserves to offset operating losses.
While this was an intentional draw down of reserves based on previous City Council direction, over the last 3
9
Budgeting For Outcomes cycles (2013-2018) $41.7M has been appropriated from Reserves. Some of these
appropriations have been offset by unanticipated revenues due to strong development. The Reserve balance
has decreased from a peak in 2014 of $56.5M to $30.8M at the end of 2018.
The 5.0% increase proposed for 2020, along with the 3.6% increase in 2019, will generate additional revenue to
remain within the distribution utility of the City and is expected to result in positive operating income being
generated for this Enterprise beginning in 2020.
While PRPA is no longer proposing a wholesale rate increase for 2020, the 3-year average operating loss
increased from $5.4M from 2015-17 to $6.3M for the 3-year period 2016-2018. The net effect of these two
Oct '18 CURRENT
Criteria 2019 2020 2020 2021
1.4%1.4%0.3%
1. PRPA wholesale energy costs 1.4%1.4%1.4%
2. 3 yr ave Operating Income < 0 5.0%3.0%3.9%TBD
3. Debt Coverage Ratio < 2.0 TBD
4. Available Reserves less Capital Need < 0 TBD
Sum of Above 6.4%5.8%5.3%
5. Lesser of 5.0% or the sum of above 5.0%5.0%5.0%TBD
Increase Carried Forward 1.4%0.8%0.3%TBD
TBD - to be determined in the 2021-22 Budget cycle
10
changes is that it is still being proposed to increase electric rates 5.0% in 2020 with only 0.3% being carried
forward into 2021.
The electric cost-of-service (COS) model is updated every two years, with the last update occurring in 2018. The
next scheduled update is in the summer of 2020 to be effective in 2021. Therefore, the proposed electric rate
increase will be the same for all rate classes in 2020.
Below is a chart showing the adjustments to rates that have been done since 2007 along with the forecasted
rate adjustments being proposed in this budget. The table below the chart shows the rate adjustments that are
anticipated to be necessary over the next 10 years to provide adequate revenues to maintain the financial
health as determined by the bond rating agencies criteria for assessing new debt issuances. This table will be
updated along with the CIPs and presented to the Council Finance Committee in November.
Stormwater Rate Increase
The ten-year rate forecast presented to this Committee in February 2018 included rather modest rate increases
in 2019 and 2020 followed by even smaller increases in the subsequent years. That forecast served as the basis
for the revenue projections utilized in the development of the 2019-20 Budget cycle.
Looking at the operating income of this utility shows a healthy operating margin. This criterium is not expected
to drive any rate increases over the next decade at least.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
%
R
a
t
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Electric Monthly Rates
Purchased Power
Distribution System
Energy Services
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Rate Increase 3.45%1.8%5.0%5.0%2-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%
Debt Issuance $M $20.0
$165M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026 in addition to the current capital appropriations.
11
As staff completes the updating and prioritizing of the latest iteration of the capital improvement plan for this
utility, the very significant amount of capital investment required to fully buildout the stormwater system
throughout the whole community is expected, hence, there is expected to be a need to increase the debt
capacity of this utility. A modest adjustment is being proposed here to help with smoothing any larger future
increase that may be necessary as the capital improvements are prioritized.
The 2% stormwater increase for 2020 is intended to raise operating revenues modestly to increase the debt
capacity of the Enterprise in anticipation of significant debt being needed to meet these future capital needs.
Similar, modest adjustments of less than 3% may be necessary over the coming decade depending on the timing
and scale of the necessary capital investments.
Criteria 2019 2020
1. 3 yr ave. Operating Income < $0 --
3. Debt Coverage Ratio < 2.0 --
4. Available Reserves less Capital Need < 0 *2.0%2.0%
Sum of Above 2.0%2.0%
5. Lesser of 5.0% or the sum of above 2.0%2.0%
* This is an estimate in lieu of the capital improvement plan
being prioritized. It will be necessary to increase revenues
to support the significant capital needs for this utility
12
As shown below few rate adjustments have been made since 2007. The table below the chart shows the rate
adjustments that are anticipated to be necessary over the next 10 years to provide adequate revenues to
maintain the financial health as determined by the bond rating agencies criteria for assessing new debt
issuances. Again, these tables will be updated and presented to the Council Finance Committee later this year
ahead of the next Budgeting For Outcomes cycle begins.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
%
R
a
t
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
504 Stormwater Fund Rate Changes
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Rate Increase 5%0%2.0%2.0%0-3%0-3%0-3%0-3%0-3%0-3%0-3%0-3%
Debt Issuance $30-35M $25-30M $25-30M
*$272M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2019 and 2044.
$70M of stream restoration work has also been identified here.
13
Mayor Troxell; a 5% increase on electric all through the distribution side - positive operating income but that
doesn’t explain the expenses.
Lance Smith; over the last decade that fund has been spending more than operating income so we are trying to
limit operating expense growth but also increase the operating revenue so we can get to positive operating
income.
Gap – look at 2P
nd
P
The chart above shows the blue line crossing over the red line in 2020
Ken Summer: What are the energy services as described on the electric rate history /forecast chart?
Lance Smith; those are dedicated funds that are going to energy conservative and energy efficiency programs –
those were rate increases that Council said they wanted to allocate a certain percentage to that purpose.
Mayor Troxell; demand charges and then usage of energy - If we are needing to make more investment on our
plant - is that on the demand charge side?
Lance Smith; most residential customers don’t have a demand charge, so all of their contribution is collected
through energy. Commercial side - small customers are not seeing the demand charges, but the larger
customers are seeing demand charges.
Mayor Troxell; on the retail side - Peak charge as opposed to real time use informed decision making - how to
meet peak demand.
Lance Smith; we do provide a forecast – maybe 6-8 times per month we send a note to customers notifying
them of
14
changes of when peak time might occur - there was significant investment made in the community to reduce
demand prior to last PRPA rate structure change. We do have a lot in place to limit reduce the incident /
coincidence peak demand - they are not getting really hit - if we had just known when the peak hour was…their
demand is relatively flat.
Mayor Troxell; more prosumers - net metered - putting more energy on the grid - we have time of use /time of
day rate which is laid over this as a zero sum to incent changing behavior and shifting the profile - if there are
more plug-in electrics. I met with a battery storage company recently and there is more and that would be on
the distribution side – battery storage - newer projects – residential going to zero energy standards - this is the
gross financing and rates. I think there is more of a shift and it requires a bit more investment on the
distribution / plant side to actively manage a distribution system when it is not just an energy outtake from Platt
River but it is integrating more distributed energy resources based on peak pricing or some other signal - active
generation based on the sun shining or the discharging of a battery. Where would we capture the distribution
side investment for active management of distributed energy resources? As you look out - does even 2023 make
sense?
Lance Smith; that question is more to the rate structure itself - whether we need to have more of the cost
collected via a fixed charge or if we are going to keep that as an energy charge - that is part of the discussion
with the Energy Board next month as they are wanting to talk about a general rate strategy. Currently all of that
is currently collected via a distribution energy charge. We might want to look at collecting more of those fixed
cost - the distribution infrastructure to meet that demand in a fixed charge.
Mayor Troxell; you could do it on the energy side because the end customer is generating energy as part of your
supply - somebody is generating their 120% - I would like to see that they are compensated for the time that
their energy is used - for example, plug in electric is in the parking garage with plenty of capacity to get home -
part of the battery storage is used for peak end of day - requiring distribution provider (us) to actively manage
and pull from that resource as opposed to Platt River or somebody else.
Lance Smith; they are compensated at the current rate - if they are producing energy - time of use rate. The
idea that you mention of pulling energy from the garage is a concept that we need to look at.
Ross Cunniff; two 5% increases are an aftershock update from our capital improvement plan / upgrades and
repairs.
Lance Smith; Yes, and there was an intentional effort to draw down reserves from $30M
Ross Cunniff; I agree with the Mayor that we need to contemplate some way of having the rate structure to
encourage people to use battery storage. There are probably some city code changes that we will need to do
and some information connectivity - perhaps we could provide some benefit with our internet utility - get
information back to them in real time and not have to depend on a 3P
rd
P party. Real time demand - because if all
of a sudden something spikes (clouds disappear all over city at the same time) suck that energy power into your
battery now - that is longer term and I don’t think that impacts our current rate structure.
Darin Atteberry has the memo that was requested by Council describing the different commercial / industrial
rate classes and which if any subsidize others and it is ready to be distributed.
15
Ross Cunniff; ACTION ITEM - Half of Fort Collins customers don’t have wastewater or stormwater so could we
add them as a separate slice or a separate total, so everyone understands?
Ken Summers; I support bringing those rate structures ahead - I like the comments about moving forward - my
thought process - what the future is going to look like - we have this kind of double bind where we want people
to conserve electricity - the more they save the more we need to raise our rates to cover our operational costs -
hopefully the battery storage economics of that coming to residential side to make it more affordable but it is
not really practical right now. When are we scheduled to do our review of our current TOD?
Lance Smith; that went into effect in October 1P
st
P and started with the November billing cycle, so we are looking
to do a 12 month review this November / December. We have an intern from CSU this summer who is helping
do some preliminary analysis and to set up the initial structure for the analysis.
Ken Summer; I like the TOD approach - I did some analysis to find out how I can be more efficient as a residential
customer. Adding the tiered rate with the TOD is not helping people manage their electric usage in a way that
we hoped - too complicated and confusing - we could improve our system and help people manage - I question
the whole tiered rate structure - requires more time than the individual consumer is willing to invest.
Council Finance Committee and Kevin Gertig discussed;
Monthly billing cycle timing concerns; prefer from as close as possible to the 1P
st
P of the month, ability to
compare to last year’s data. There are 9 different billing cycles / 75K bills. The intent is to align billing
cycles in a geographic fashion.
Migrating to the new Oasis billing system which will include Connexion and the other the other 5
utilities. The existing system is very dated, and analytics are under powered, but our new system will
have that capability. Kevin Gertig will send a brief memo to Council to articulate where we are at with
the billing cycles and provide an update regarding the status of the implementation of / migration to our
new billing system.
Communicating availability of information on-line. Direct customers to the website to access Monitor
My Use which shows their annual / 12-month usage and billing data history. Individual help is available
for those who have questions or are not technologically savvy. Complements to the customer service
team. How to help consumers understand how to manage their electricity more effectively. We are all
in on conservation.
Time of Use / Demand Curves - chasing the peak / reserve capacity / peak usage - changing the model of
shifting the peak through time of use - huge investment goes into meeting that short peak - shift the
demand long term which meets multiple city goals.
Council Finance Committee supports bringing this rate increase forward to Council.
Mayor Troxell; Lance, you did a great job!
Meeting adjourned at 11:23 am
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Chris Telli, BKD LLP
Anna Thigpen, BKD LLP
Date: July 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Independent Auditors’ Report on 2018 Financial Statements
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Major Federal Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BKD will be presenting the Report to the City Council. This report covers the audit of the basic
financial statements and compliance of the City of Fort Collins for year-end December 31, 2018.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff seeks input on areas of priority or concern, other than those established in this Report to the
City Council, for matters of recordkeeping and/or the City’s internal control environment.
Otherwise there are no specific questions to be answered as this is a 2018 year-end report.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In compliance with Government Auditing Standards, the City undergoes an independent external
audit on an annual basis. BKD finalized its financial statement audit and compliance report on
June 21, 2019 and the firm is required to report the results of the audit to those charged with
governance.
Attachment 1 to this agenda item contains the full report, and findings of note are summarized
below:
Significant Deficiency (Attachment 2, page 13):
There was one significant deficiency identified related to Federal grants in the Compliance
Report, finding 2018-001 which reads in part (emphasis added):
The City originally passed an ordinance in 2005 allocating 0.25% tax for the construction
of capital assets in the Community Capital Improvement Program Fund (CCIP), a special
revenue fund. The tax was later extended by Ordinance No. 013-2015 commencing
January 1, 2016 and expiring December 31, 2025. When the initiative was extended, the
City created a separate fund for the proceeds until which time the proceeds were
expended for the approved capital projects. When the approved projects were completed,
the taxes were transferred from the CCIP Fund to a capital projects fund. During the year-
end financial reporting process, when the City identified capital asset-related
expenditures for capitalization, it inadvertently capitalized the same cost twice; once
when the expenditure was initially recorded in the CCIP Fund and a second time
when those same costs were transferred to the capital projects fund.
The finding results in an adjustment to reduce the City’s $1.6 billion of capital asset balances by
approximately $11.7 million, of which $8.4 million relates to prior periods. The City adjusted the
2018 financial statements and issued a corrective action plan to prevent this condition in future
years (Attachment 3).
Significant Issues Discussed with Management (Attachment 1, page 4):
City management and the audit team discussed the accounting treatment of a 2013 plant
investment fee agreement with Fort Collins-Loveland Water District after receipt of pre-payment
from the District in 2019. Ultimately, the original 2013 treatment will be applied to this
agreement.
Other Findings (Attachment 1, pages 6-7):
Other findings/deficiencies identified by the auditors but not rising to the level of a significant
deficiency can be found in the Report to the City Council (Attachment 1, pages 6-7). Staff will
provide a written response to the audit findings at a fourth quarter Council Finance Committee
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report to the City Council
2. Single Audit Compliance Report
3. City Corrective Action Plan
4. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Fort Collins, Colorado
As part of our audits of the financial statements and compliance of the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, we wish to communicate
the following to you.
AUDIT SCOPE AND RESULTS
Auditor’s Responsibility Under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United
States of America and the Standards Applicable to Financial Audits Contained in
Government Auditing Standards Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States
and U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
An audit performed in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and U.S. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Guidance is designed to obtain reasonable, rather than
absolute, assurance about the financial statements and about whether noncompliance with the
types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have
a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. In performing auditing
procedures, we establish scopes of audit tests in relation to the financial statements taken as a
whole. Our engagement does not include a detailed audit of every transaction. Our engagement
letter more specifically describes our responsibilities.
These standards require communication of significant matters related to the financial statement
and compliance audits that are relevant to the responsibilities of those charged with governance
in overseeing the financial reporting process. Such matters are communicated in the remainder
of this letter or have previously been communicated during other phases of the audit. The
standards do not require the auditor to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other
matters to be communicated with those charged with governance.
Audits of the financial statements and compliance do not relieve management or those charged
with governance of their responsibilities. The professional services agreement more specifically
describes your responsibilities.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 2
Qualitative Aspects of Significant Accounting Policies and Practices
Significant Accounting Policies
The City’s significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 of the audited financial
statements.
Alternative Accounting Treatments
We had discussions with management regarding alternative accounting treatments within
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for policies and
practices for material items, including recognition, measurement and disclosure considerations
related to the accounting for specific transactions as well as general accounting policies, as
follows:
No matters are reportable
Management Judgments and Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of financial statement preparation by management,
based on its judgments. The following areas involve significant areas of such estimates for
which we are prepared to discuss management’s estimation process and our procedures for
testing the reasonableness of those estimates:
Self-insurance reserves (IBNR)
Net pension liability
Other postemployment benefits liability
Fair value of investments
Allowances for accounts, grants and notes receivable
Depreciable lives of capital assets
Financial Statement Disclosures
Revenue recognition
Investments
Long-term debt
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 3
Audit Adjustments
During the course of any audit, an auditor may propose adjustments to financial statement
amounts. Management evaluates our proposals and records those adjustments which, in its
judgment, are required to prevent the financial statements from being materially misstated.
Some adjustments proposed were not recorded because their aggregate effect is not currently
material; however, they involve areas in which adjustments in the future could be material,
individually or in the aggregate.
Areas in which adjustments were proposed include:
Proposed Audit Adjustments Recorded
Duplicate capitalization of assets
Proposed Audit Adjustments Not Recorded
Attached is a summary of uncorrected misstatements we aggregated during the current
engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented that were determined by
management to be immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial
statements as a whole
Auditor’s Judgments About the Quality of the City’s Accounting Principles
During the course of the audit, we made the following observations regarding the City’s
application of accounting principles:
During 2018 the City adopted Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement
(GASB) No. 86, Certain Debt Extinguishment Issues and GASB No. 89, Accounting for
Interest Cost Occurred Before the End of a Construction Period
Disagreements with Management
The following matters involved disagreements which if not satisfactorily resolved would have
caused a modified auditor’s opinion on the financial statements:
No matters are reportable
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 4
Consultation with Other Accountants
During our audit we became aware that management had consulted with other accountants about
the following auditing or accounting matters:
No matters are reportable
Significant Issues Discussed with Management
Prior to Retention
During our discussion with management prior to our engagement, the following issues regarding
application of accounting principles or auditing standards were discussed:
No matters are reportable
During the Audit Process
During the audit process, the following issues were discussed or were the subject of
correspondence with management:
We had discussions with management over the handling of recording the receipt of Plant
Investment Fee (PIF) Revenue
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
Our audit requires cooperative effort between management and the audit team. During our audit,
we found significant difficulties in working effectively on the following matters:
No matters are reportable
Other Material Communications
Listed below are other material communications between management and us related to the
audit:
Management representation letter (attached)
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 5
We orally communicated to management other deficiencies in internal control identified
during our audit that are not considered material weaknesses or significant deficiencies
INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to
financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal
control) as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our
opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding
paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be
significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and, therefore, there can be no assurance that all
deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses have been identified. However, as
discussed below, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be a
significant deficiency.
A deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or
employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect and
correct misstatements of the City’s financial statements on a timely basis. A deficiency in design
exists when a control necessary to meet a control objective is missing or an existing control is
not properly designed so that, even if the control operates as designed, a control objective would
not be met. A deficiency in operation exists when a properly designed control does not operate
as designed or when the person performing the control does not possess the necessary authority
or competence to perform the control effectively.
A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such
that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial
statements will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is
less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 6
We observed the following matter that we consider to be a significant deficiency.
Significant Deficiency
Refer to the Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of the Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
Deficiencies
Information Technology (IT)
The secondary data center is located within five miles of the primary data center. Given
their proximity, both data centers could be affected by the same regional events resulting
in an extended service outage. Furthermore, the City’s secondary/backup co-location
data center is managed by a third party. A Service and Organization Controls (SOC) or
similar report has not been received and evaluated by the City to verify the effectiveness
of physical and environmental controls of the third party. We recommend that the City
perform an evaluation of the location of the secondary data center and consider steps to
reduce the risks associated with the proximity of the data centers. We further recommend
that the City obtain the SOC report from the third party manager of the data center when
this report becomes available.
We noted there is not a periodic formal documented process to review the ongoing need
of City personnel to have physical access to the secondary data center. We recommend
implementing a periodic review, which provides management with the opportunity to
verify ongoing need and to remove access for terminated users that were not otherwise
caught in the normal termination process.
The City does not have an enterprise-wide Incident Response Program to provide
uniform guidance on classifying and handling incidents. We recommend the City
consider the feasibility of implementing an enterprise-wide Incident Response Program.
A formal periodic user access and permission review is not evidenced for the applications
listed below. We recommend a documented periodic user access review be performed to
ensure access to the below applications is appropriate.
o JD Edwards
o CIS
o Tungsten
o MS Govern
o Accela
o Active Directory (AD)
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 7
Financial Reporting
Reconciliations for various accounts are not performed on a periodic basis and therefore there are
multiple outstanding items spanning upwards of 20 years. A summary of items identified
include:
Deposits that cleared the December bank statement were included as reconciling items on
the bank reconciliation and in accounts receivable.
Transportation Fund – Customer accounts receivable included an unreconciled amount.
Reconciliations for developer escrows are not completed periodically causing variances
between the balance recorded in the general ledger and the supporting documentation. A
passed adjustment was posted in the general fund in order to reflect the balance that
agreed to supporting documentation.
General Fund – the City has an unearned revenue account for building permits that is not
reconciled. There are amounts included in the detail dating back to 1997.
The City performs high-level analytics on the parking citation accounts receivable, but
does not formally reconcile this account. BKD would suggest looking at the aging and
considering if an allowance is necessary.
Developer Escrows (Storm Water fund) – during testing of developer escrows, it was
noted that there are items dating back to 1997. Per discussions with staff, we note that
most commonly, the City does not collect on these escrows and therefore these items
should be removed from the escrow payable.
While none of the issues noted materially affected the financial statements, reconciliations are an
important part of the internal control structure and we recommend that reconciliations be
performed at least on an annual basis to ensure account balances are properly stated.
We observed matters that we consider to be deficiencies that we communicated to management
verbally.
OTHER MATTERS
Although not considered material weaknesses, significant deficiencies or deficiencies in internal
control over financial reporting, we observed the following matters and offer these comments
and suggestions with respect to matters which came to our attention during the course of the
audit of the financial statements. Our audit procedures are designed primarily to enable us to
form an opinion on the financial statements and, therefore, may not bring to light all weaknesses
in policies and procedures that may exist. However, these matters are offered as constructive
suggestions for the consideration of management as part of the ongoing process of modifying
and improving financial and administrative practices and procedures. We can discuss these
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 8
matters further at your convenience and may provide implementation assistance for changes or
improvements.
Future Accounting Pronouncements
GASB Statement No. 83, Certain Asset Retirement Obligations (GASB 83): GASB 83
establishes uniform criteria for governments to recognize and measure certain asset retirement
obligations (AROs). An ARO is defined as a legally enforceable liability associated with the
retirement of a tangible capital asset. Examples could be costs associated with decommissioning
a nuclear power plant or disposal of x-ray machine. An ARO is recognized when the liability is
incurred, which is manifested by the occurrence of both an external obligating event (such as a
legally binding contract or a court judgment) and an internal obligating event (such as placing a
tangible capital asset into service). A government also recognizes a deferred outflow of
resources when it recognizes an ARO liability. The ARO is measured at the best estimate of the
current value of outlays expected to be incurred. Additional note disclosures are required.
GASB 83 is effective for the City’s year ending December 31, 2019.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 84
GASB has issued Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities (GASB 84). GASB 84 establishes
criteria for identifying and reporting fiduciary activities. It presents separate criteria for
evaluating component units, pension and other postemployment benefit arrangements, and other
fiduciary activities. The focus is on a government controlling the assets of the fiduciary activity
and identification of the beneficiaries of those assets. Fiduciary activities are reported in one of
four types of funds: pension (and other employee benefit) trust funds, investment trust funds,
private-purpose trust funds, or custodial funds. Custodial funds are used to report fiduciary
activities that are not held in a trust. The agency fund designation will no longer be used.
GASB 84 also provides guidance on fiduciary fund statements and timing of recognition of a
liability to beneficiaries.
This statement will be effective for the City’s year ending December 31, 2019.
GASB Statement No. 87, Leases (GASB 87)
GASB 87 provides a new framework for accounting for leases under the principle that leases are
financings. No longer will leases be classified between capital and operating. Lessees will
recognize an intangible asset and a corresponding liability. The liability will be based on the
payments expected to be paid over the lease term, which includes an evaluation of the likelihood
of exercising renewal or termination options in the lease. Lessors will recognize a lease
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council and City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Page 9
receivable and related deferred inflows of resources. Lessors will not derecognize the underlying
asset. An exception to the general model is provided for short-term leases that cannot last more
than 12 months. Contracts that contain lease and nonlease components will need to be separated
so each component is accounted for accordingly.
GASB 87 is effective for the City’s year ending December 31, 2020. Earlier application is
encouraged. Governments will be allowed to transition using the facts and circumstances in
place at the time of adoption, rather than retroactive to the time each lease was begun.
GASB Statement No. 88, Certain Disclosures Related to Debt, including Direct Borrowings and
Direct Placements (GASB 88)
GASB 88 specifies disclosures that should be made in the financial statements related to debt. It
also provides a definition of debt so that governments know which types of liabilities should be
included in those disclosures. If a government has direct borrowings or direct placements,
disclosures related to these should be provided separately from disclosures related to other types
of debt.
GASB 88 is effective for the City’s year ending December 31, 2019.
* * * * *
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management, City Council,
and others within the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than
these specified parties.
June 21, 2019
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 1,218,633,909 (541,722) 1,218,092,187 -0.04%
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (119,129,907) (119,129,907)
Total Net Position (1,099,504,002) 541,722 (1,098,962,280) -0.05%
General Revenues & Transfers (218,291,138) (226,000) (218,517,138) 0.10%
Net Program Revenues/ Expenses 191,415,677 (8,239,049) 183,176,628 -4.30%
Change in Net Position (26,875,461) (8,465,049) (35,340,510) 31.50%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Governmental Activities (Government-Wide Statements)
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Governmental Activities (Government-Wide Statements)
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Assets Liabilities
General Revenues
& Transfers
Net Program
Revenues/
Expenses Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR)
Prior year work-in-process capital
assets that were capitalized twice
(corrected in current year)
F
0 0 0 (8,381,199) 8,381,199 0 0
Expense - Gain/Loss on Sale of Asset (8,381,199)
Net Position 8,381,199
Cultural Services Fund (Fund 273):
Current year and prior year work-in-
process assets that were
capitalized twice (not corrected in
current year)
F
(541,722) 0 0 142,150 399,572 0 0
Accumulated Depreciation 90,191
Capital Assets (631,913)
Gain/Loss on Sale of Asset - Current Year 193,724
Net Position - Prior Year 399,572
Depreciation Expense (51,574)
Turnaround effect - To adjust credit
card cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 (226,000) 0 226,000 0 0
Revenue (226,000) 226,000
Net Position
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 1,105,806
Unrestricted net position (1,105,806)
Total passed adjustments (541,722) 0 (226,000) (8,239,049) 9,006,771 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position (8,465,049)
Impact on Net Position 541,722
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Net Effect on Following Year
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Current Assets 1,059,130,972 1,059,130,972
Non-Current Assets & Deferred Outflows 2,616,710 2,616,710
Current Liabilities (30,448,281) (30,448,281)
Non-Current Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (179,953,894) (179,953,894)
Current Ratio 34.79 34.79
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 1,061,747,682 1,061,747,682
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (210,402,175) (210,402,175)
Total Net Position (851,345,507) (851,345,507)
General Revenues & Transfers (6,544,250) (332,000) (6,876,250) 5.07%
Net Program Revenues/ Expenses (16,195,862) (16,195,862)
Change in Net Position (22,740,112) (332,000) (23,072,112) 1.46%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Business Type Activities (Government-Wide Statements)
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Governmental Activities (Government-Wide Statements)
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Current Non-Current Current Non-Current
General Revenues
& Transfers
Net Program
Revenues/
Expenses Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)
Turnaround effect - To adjust credit
card cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 0 0 (332,000) 0 332,000 0 0
Revenue (332,000)
Net Position 332,000
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 1,328,894
Unrestricted net position (1,328,894)
Total passed adjustments 0 0 0 0 (332,000) 0 332,000 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position (332,000)
Impact on Net Position 0
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Assets & Deferred Outflows Liabilities & Deferred Inflows Net Effect on Following Year
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Current Assets 11,724,546 11,724,546
Non-Current Assets & Deferred Outflows 4,900,227 4,900,227
Current Liabilities (220,934) (220,934)
Non-Current Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (14,788,374) (14,788,374)
Current Ratio 53.07 53.07
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 16,624,773 16,624,773
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (15,009,308) (15,009,308)
Total Net Position (1,615,465) (1,615,465)
General Revenues & Transfers (6,715,647) (6,715,647)
Net Program Revenues/ Expenses 4,685,869 4,685,869
Change in Net Position (2,026,858) (2,026,858)
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Discretely Presented Component Units (Government-Wide Statements)
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Governmental Activities (Government-Wide Statements)
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Current Non-Current Current Non-Current
General Revenues
& Transfers
Net Program
Revenues/
Expenses Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 103,218
Unrestricted net position (103,218)
Total passed adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position 0
Impact on Net Position 0
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Assets & Deferred Outflows Liabilities & Deferred Inflows Net Effect on Following Year
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 98,164,522 98,164,522
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (31,108,990) (666,312) (31,775,302) 2.14%
Total Fund Balance (67,055,532) 666,312 (66,389,220) -0.99%
Revenues (149,784,626) (39,000) (149,823,626) 0.03%
Expenditures 129,296,370 666,312 129,962,682 0.52%
Change in Fund Balance 3,684,385 627,312 4,311,697 17.03%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the
financial statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
General Fund
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
General Fund
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Assets & Deferred
Outflows
Liabilities &
Deferred Inflows
Change in Fund
Balance
Fund
Balance
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR)
To adjust the developer escrows to
the more conservative tracking
spreadsheet amount
J
0 (666,312) 0 666,312 0 0 0
Expense 666,312
A/P Developer Escrows (666,312)
Turnaround effect - Credit card
cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 (39,000) 0 39,000 0 0
Revenue (39,000)
Fund Balance 39,000
Total passed adjustments 0 (666,312) (39,000) 666,312 39,000 0 0
Impact on Change in Fund Balance 627,312
Impact on Fund Balance 666,312
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance
Net Effect on Following Year
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 256,767,257 (206,994) 256,560,263 -0.08%
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (61,575,139) (61,575,139)
Total Fund Balance (195,192,118) 208,994 (194,983,124) -0.11%
Revenues (155,388,984) (220,000) (155,608,984) 0.14%
Expenditures 161,405,563 206,994 161,612,557 0.13%
Change in Fund Balance (6,002,665) (13,006) (6,015,671) 0.22%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the
financial statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Aggregate Remaining Fund Information
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Assets & Deferred
Outflows
Liabilities &
Deferred Inflows
Change in Fund
Balance
Fund
Balance
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR) DR (CR)
HOME Fund - To reclassify the
cash that cleared the bank prior to
year-end from accounts receivable.
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash 82,335
Accounts Receivable (82,335)
Mulitple Funds - To write off the
unreconciled amount in the credit
card clearing account
FJ
(81,500) 0 0 81,500 0 0 0
Expense 81,500
Cash (81,500)
Transportation Fund - To write off
the unreconciled amount in the
Customer AR Account.
F
(125,494) 0 0 125,494 0 0 0
Expense 125,494
Accounts Receivable (125,494)
Turnaround effect - Credit card
cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 (220,000) 0 222,000 0 0
Revenue (220,000)
Fund Balance 222,000
Total passed adjustments (206,994) 0 (220,000) 206,994 222,000 0 0
Impact on Change in Fund Balance (13,006)
Impact on Fund Balance 208,994
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance
Net Effect on Following Year
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Current Assets 40,660,883 40,660,883
Non-Current Assets & Deferred Outflows 325,551,046 325,551,046
Current Liabilities (15,591,759) (15,591,759)
Non-Current Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (144,754,963) (144,754,963)
Current Ratio 2.608 2.608
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 366,211,929 366,211,929
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (160,346,722) (160,346,722)
Total Net Position (205,865,207) (205,865,207)
Operating Revenues (133,263,480) (133,263,480)
Operating Expenses 140,904,093 140,904,093
Nonoperating (Revenues) Exp 446,870 446,870
Change in Net Position 614,556 614,556
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Electric & Telecommunications
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Electric & Telecommunications
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Current Non-Current Current Non-Current
Operating
Revenues
Operating
Expenses
Nonoperating
(Revenues) Exp Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 408,447
Unrestricted net position (408,447)
Total passed adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position 0
Impact on Net Position 0
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Assets & Deferred Outflows Liabilities & Deferred Inflows Net Effect on Following Year
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Current Assets 73,158,845 73,158,845
Non-Current Assets & Deferred Outflows 260,833,234 260,833,234
Current Liabilities (2,939,903) (2,939,903)
Non-Current Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (3,901,593) (3,901,593)
Current Ratio 24.885 24.885
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 333,992,079 333,992,079
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (6,841,496) (6,841,496)
Total Net Position (327,150,583) (327,150,583)
Operating Revenues (34,226,525) (46,000) (34,272,525) 0.13%
Operating Expenses 29,037,388 29,037,388
Nonoperating (Revenues) Exp 3,512,647 3,512,647
Change in Net Position (11,528,955) (46,000) (11,574,955) 0.40%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Water
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Water
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Current Non-Current Current Non-Current
Operating
Revenues
Operating
Expenses
Nonoperating
(Revenues) Exp Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)
Turnaround effect - To adjust credit
card cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 0 0 (46,000) 0 0 46,000 0 0
Revenue (46,000)
Net Position 46,000
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 334,613
Unrestricted net position (334,613)
Total passed adjustments 0 0 0 0 (46,000)0 0 46,000 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position (46,000)
Impact on Net Position 0
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Assets & Deferred Outflows Liabilities & Deferred Inflows Net Effect on Following Year
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Current Assets 46,656,352 46,656,352
Non-Current Assets & Deferred Outflows 164,867,457 164,867,457
Current Liabilities (3,893,088) (3,893,088)
Non-Current Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (23,130,253) (23,130,253)
Current Ratio 11.984 11.984
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 211,523,809 211,523,809
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (27,023,341) (27,023,341)
Total Net Position (184,500,468) (184,500,468)
Operating Revenues (21,023,097) (35,000) (21,058,097) 0.17%
Operating Expenses 21,023,097 21,023,097
Nonoperating (Revenues) Exp 190,525 190,525
Change in Net Position (5,891,334) (35,000) (5,926,334) 0.59%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Wastewater
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Wastewater
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Current Non-Current Current Non-Current
Operating
Revenues
Operating
Expenses
Nonoperating
(Revenues) Exp Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)
Turnaround effect - To adjust credit
card cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 0 0 (35,000) 0 0 35,000 0 0
Revenue (35,000)
Net Position 35,000
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 336,745
Unrestricted net position (336,745)
Total passed adjustments 0 0 0 0 (35,000)0 0 35,000 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position (35,000)
Impact on Net Position 0
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Assets & Deferred Outflows Liabilities & Deferred Inflows Net Effect on Following Year
Before Subsequent to
Misstatements Misstatements Misstatements % Change
Current Assets 25,901,411 25,901,411
Non-Current Assets & Deferred Outflows 128,938,473 128,938,473
Current Liabilities (6,403,600) (6,403,600)
Non-Current Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (4,606,952) (4,606,952)
Current Ratio 4.045 4.045
Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 154,839,884 154,839,884
Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows (11,010,552) (11,010,552)
Total Net Position (143,829,332) (143,829,332)
Operating Revenues (17,027,336) (25,000) (17,052,336) 0.15%
Operating Expenses 10,033,973 10,033,973
Nonoperating (Revenues) Exp 280,234 280,234
Change in Net Position (8,823,612) (25,000) (8,848,612) 0.28%
City of Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT
This analysis and the attached "Schedule of Uncorrected Misstatements (Adjustments Passed)" reflects the effects on the financial
statements if the uncorrected misstatements identified were corrected.
Storm Drainage
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Storm Drainage
SCHEDULE OF UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS (ADJUSTMENTS PASSED)
Current Non-Current Current Non-Current
Operating
Revenues
Operating
Expenses
Nonoperating
(Revenues) Exp Net Position
Change in Net
Position Net Position
Description Financial Statement Line Item DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)DR (CR)
Turnaround effect - To adjust credit
card cash account out of balance
overstatement
F
0 0 0 0 (25,000) 0 0 25,000 0 0
Revenue (25,000)
Net Position 25,000
To adjust the net investment in
capital assets component of net
position for the inclusion of
retainage
F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net investment in capital assets 249,088
Unrestricted net position (249,088)
Total passed adjustments 0 0 0 0 (25,000)0 0 25,000 0 0
Impact on Change in Net Position (25,000)
Impact on Net Position 0
Factual (F),
Judgmental (J),
Projected (P)
Client: City of Fort Collins
Period Ending: December 31, 2018
Assets & Deferred Outflows Liabilities & Deferred Inflows Net Effect on Following Year
City of Fort Collins
Single Audit Report
Year Ended December 31, 2018
City of Fort Collins
December 31, 2018
Contents
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .................................................................... 1
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ..................................................... 5
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an
Audit of the Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards – Independent Auditor’s Report ............................... 6
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major
Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance;
and Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance – Independent Auditor’s Report .............. 8
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ................................................................... 11
Status of Prior Audit Findings ........................................................................................... 15
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended December 31, 2018
1
Department of Housing and Urban Development
CDBG Entitlements Grants Cluster
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
Grant Year 2010 / 2011 Direct B-10-MC-08-0008 14.218 $ 65,466.00 $ 65,466
Grant Year 2013 / 2014 Direct B-13-MC-08-0008 14.218 85,543.00 85,543
Grant Year 2015 / 2016 Direct B-15-MC-08-0008 14.218 40,920.00 40,920
Grant Year 2016 / 2017 Direct B-16-MC-08-0008 14.218 110,176.00 110,176
Grant Year 2017 / 2018 Direct B-17-MC-08-0008 14.218 1,164,146.00 1,268,705
Grant Year 2018 / 2019 Direct B-18-MC-08-0008 14.218 50,190.00 81,256
Total CDBG Entitlement Grants Cluster 1,516,441.00 1,652,066
Home Investment Partnerships Program
Grant Year 2013 / 2014 Direct M-13-MC-08-0209 14.239 89,965.00 89,965
Grant Year 2016 / 2017 Direct M-16-MC-08-0209 14.239 112,500.00 112,500
Grant Year 2017 / 2018 Direct M-17-MC-08-0209 14.239 100,000.00 133,777
Grant Year 2018 / 2019 Direct M-18-MC-08-0209 15.239 72,000.00 96,319
Subtotal 374,465.00 432,561
Total Department of Housing and Urban Development 1,890,906.00 2,084,627
Department of Justice
Equitable Sharing Program Direct 15-5042-0-2-752 16.922 - 772,866
Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Pass-Through Larimer County 2017-DJ-BX-0785 16.738 - 23,174
Total Department of Justice - 796,040
Department of Treasury
Equitable Sharing Program Direct
15-6400-5-5-123-Forfeiture
Fund 21.016 - 1,826
Total Department of Treasury - 1,826
Department of Transportation
Highway Safety Cluster
Colorado Department
State and Community Highway Safety (Seatbelt Grant) Pass-Through of Transportation 18-NHTSA402.6102 20.600 - 4,893
Total Highway Safety Cluster - 4,893
Federal Grantor/
Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title
Federal CFDA
Number
Project/Grant (FAIN) No.
Pass-Through Entity Federal Expenditures
Pass-Through to
Subrecipients Direct/Pass-Through Pass-Through Entity
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2018
2
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Planning and Consruction Cluster
Jefferson Street/SH 14 Intersection Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation ACQ M455-088 (16525) 20.205 - 14,865
Pitkin Low Stress Corridor Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation TAP M455-120 (20664) 20.205 - 5,491
N.College PedestrianConnection Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation AQC M455-111 (19561) 20.205 - 357,385
Horsetooth/College Intstn Impv Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation STU M455-118 (20615) 20.205 - 3,201,295
Riverside Bridge Rplcmt Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation BRO M455-121 (20825) 20.205 - 1,110,551
Safe Routes to School (CSRTS) Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation PO 411016330 20.205 - 17,928
Regional Air Quality Council Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation 14-HTD-72849 20.205 - 354,517
Total Highway Planning and Construction Cluster - 5,062,032
Federal Grantor/
Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title Direct/Pass-Through Pass-Through Entity
Project/Grant (FAIN) No.
Pass-Through Entity
Federal CFDA
Number
Pass-Through to
Subrecipients Federal Expenditures
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2018
3
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Transit Cluster
5309 - 2009 Mason Corridor Small Starts (MAX) Direct CO-03-0206-01 20.500 - 117,418
Section 5339 - 2014 (Remaining funds-Wayfinding/Bicycle Racks/Roof Caulking) Direct CO-2017-033-00 20.526 - 4,665
Section 5339 - 2015/2016 (Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Apportionment) Direct CO-2018-002-00 20.526 - 256,886
Section 5339 - 2017 Facility and Asset Improvements Direct CO-2019-009-00 20.526 - 215,444
FY17 5307 Direct CO-2018-001-00 20.507 - 948,635
FY18 5307 Direct CO-2018-017-00 20.507 - 4,004,178
FY16/17/18 - 5307 (CMAQ) Operating Direct CO-2019-003-00 20.507 - 748,630
Total Federal Transit Cluster - 6,295,856
Transit Services Programs Cluster
Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
FY15 5310 (Elderly and Disabled Large Urban)Direct CO-2017-025-00 20.513 - 162,784
FY16 5310 - (Large UZA/Paratransit Vehicles/Admin)Direct CO-2018-016-00 20.513 - 17,391
Total Transit Services Programs Cluster - 180,175
Metropolitan Transportation Planning and State and Non-Metropolitan Planning and Research
2016 5304 Station Area Planning Pass-Through
Colorado Department
of Transportation 18-HTR-ZL-00057 20.505 - 40,000
Total Department of Transportation - 11,582,956
Project/Grant (FAIN) No.
Pass-Through Entity
Pass-Through to
Subrecipients Federal Expenditures Direct/Pass-Through Pass-Through Entity
Federal Grantor/
Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title
Federal CFDA
Number
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2018
4
Environmental Protection Agency
Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements Direct 96806101 66.818 - 105,652
Performance Partnership Grants Pass-Through CO Dept of Public
Health and
Environment
PO FAAA 201800005049 66.605 - 7,735
Total Environmental Protection Agency - 113,387
FEMA
Hazard Mitigation Grant Pass-Through CO Depart. of Public
Safety Division of
Homeland Security and
Emergency
Management
MG4145061126 97.039 - 705,398
Total FEMA - 705,398
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards 15,284,234$
Pass-Through to
Subrecipients Federal Expenditures
Federal Grantor/
Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title Direct/Pass-Through Pass-Through Entity
Project/Grant (FAIN) No.
Pass-Through Entity
Federal CFDA
Number
City of Fort Collins
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended December 31, 2018
5
Notes to Schedule
(1) Basis of Presentation
The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of
Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because this
Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the City, it is not intended to and does
not present the financial position, changes in net position or cash flows of the City. The Schedule
includes federally funded projects received directly from federal agencies and the federal amount of
pass-through awards received by the City through the State of Colorado or other non-federal
entities.
(2) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such
expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained OMB Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments , or the cost principles contained in the
Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to
reimbursement. Pass-through identifying numbers are presented where available. The City elected
not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.
6
Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an
Audit of the Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
Independent Auditor’s Report
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, Colorado
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the basic financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component unit, each major fund
and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Fort Collins (the City), as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise
the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 21, 2019.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control
over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a
timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control
that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Fort Collins
7
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies, and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may
exist that have not been identified.. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. We did identify certain
deficiencies in internal control, described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs
as item 2018-001 that we consider to be a significant deficiency.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free of
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City’s Response to Findings
The City’s response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying schedule of
findings questioned costs. The City’s response was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in
the audit of the financial statements, and accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal
control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Denver, Colorado
June 21, 2019
8
Report on Compliance for Each Major
Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance;
and Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance
Independent Auditor’s Report
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, Colorado
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Fort Collins’s (the City) compliance with the types of compliance
requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect
on each of the City’s major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2018. The City’s major
federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying schedule
of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions
of its federal awards applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City’s major federal programs
based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of
compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the
standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of
compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal
program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance
with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Fort Collins
9
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major
federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Federal Programs
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements
referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the
year ended December 31, 2018.
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our
audit of compliance, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the types of
requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the
auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in
accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a
federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance such that there is a
reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal
program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in
internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material
weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over
compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However,
material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our
testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the
Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Fort Collins
10
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform
Guidance
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the
aggregate discretely presented component unit, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund
information of the City, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018 and the related notes to the
financial statements, which collectively comprise City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report
thereon dated June 21, 2019 which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our
audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is
presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required
part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was
derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic
financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such
information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial
statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule
of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial
statements as a whole.
Denver, Colorado
June 21, 2019
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended December 31, 2018
11
Summary of Auditor’s Results
Financial Statements
1. The type of report the auditor issued on whether the financial statements audited were prepared in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP)
was (were):
Unmodified Qualified Adverse Disclaimer
2. The independent auditor’s report on internal control over financial reporting disclosed:
Significant deficiency(ies)? Yes None reported
Material weakness(es)? Yes No
3. Noncompliance considered material to the financial statements
was disclosed by the audit?
Yes No
Federal Awards
4. The independent auditor’s report on internal control over compliance for major federal awards programs
disclosed:
Material weakness(es) identified? Yes No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified? Yes None reported
5. The opinions expressed in the independent auditor’s report on compliance for major federal awards
were:
Unmodified Qualified Adverse Disclaimed
6. The audit disclosed findings required to be reported by
2 CFR 200.516(a)?
Yes No
7. Identification of major programs:
CFDA Number Name of Federal Program or Cluster
20.500, 20.526, 20.507 Federal Transit Cluster
16.922 Equitable Sharing Program
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2018
12
8. The threshold to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs was $750,000.
9. Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee?
Yes No
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2018
13
Findings Required to be Reported by Government Auditing Standards
Number
2018-001 Finding: Accounting for Capital Assets
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (US GAAP) that
address the proper recognition and accounting of capital assets include:
Condition: The City originally passed an ordinance in 2005 allocating 0.25% tax for the construction of capital assets in the
Community Capital Improvement Program Fund (CCIP), a special revenue fund. The tax was later extended by Ordinance No.
013-2015 commencing January 1, 2016 and expiring December 31, 2025. When the initiative was extended, the City created a
separate fund for the proceeds until which time the proceeds were expended for the approved capital projects. When the
approved projects were completed, the taxes were transferred from the CCIP Fund to a capital projects fund. During the year-
end financial reporting process, when the City identified capital asset-related expenditures for capitalization, it inadvertently
capitalized the same cost twice; once when the expenditure was initially recorded in the CCIP Fund and a second time when
those same costs were transferred to the capital projects fund.
Views of Responsible Officials: The City agrees with the finding. See separate report for planned corrective actions.
Cause: Transfers were recorded in the financial accounting system in such a manner that City personnel included all capital
asset expenditures in total capital asset additions in the governmental activities.
Recommendation: We recommend that internal controls be strengthened and systems be revised to properly identify these
costs in the future and avoid double counting these costs. Adequate training should be provided to all employees as necessary to
eliminate this error.
Effect: The condition noted above resulted in a proposed adjustment to reduce the capital asset balances by approximately
$11.7 million. Of this amount $8.4 million related to prior periods.
Finding
• Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements — and Management’s
Discussion and Analysis — for State and Local Governments (GASB 34)
• Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 37, Basic Financial Statements — and Management’s
Discussion and Analysis — for State and Local Governments: Omnibus — an amendment of GASB Statements No. 21 and No.
34 (GASB 37)
• Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible
Assets (GASB 51)
• Various implementation guidance issued by GASB
City of Fort Collins
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2018
14
Findings Required to be Reported by the Uniform Guidance
Reference
Number Finding
No matters are reportable.
City of Fort Collins
Status of Prior Audit Findings
Year Ended December 31, 2018
15
Reference
Number Summary of Finding Status
No matters are reportable.
Financial Services
215 N Mason Street, 2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6770
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com/finance
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2019
TO: 2019 Year-end Files
FROM: Travis Storin, Accounting Director
CC: BKD, LLP
RE: 2018 Corrective Action Reference Number 2018-001
Finding: Capital Assets
Implementation Date: 1-Jan-19
Corrective Action: The City will modify the reporting tools used to calculate its Construction in Progress (CIP) accounts and any
resultant in-service assets to ensure that all transfer accounts are excluded from the underlying source data. The City will review and
confirm, on an annual basis, the underlying data sources and reports to confirm that transfers and any other non-applicable source data
are still systematically excluded from its workpapers pertaining to CIP and in-service assets.
Person(s) Responsible for Implementation: Mike Beckstead, CFO; Travis Storin, Accounting Director
The City originally passed an ordinance in 2005 allocating 0.25% tax for the construction of capital assets in the
Community Capital Improvement Program Fund (CCIP), a special revenue fund. The tax was later extended by Ordinance No.
013-2015 commencing January 1, 2016 and expiring December 31, 2025. When the initiative was extended, the City created a
separate fund for the proceeds until which time the proceeds were expended for the approved capital projects. When the
approved projects were completed, the taxes were transferred from the CCIP Fund to a capital projects fund. During the yearend
financial reporting process, when the City identified capital asset-related expenditures for capitalization, it inadvertently
capitalized the same cost twice; once when the expenditure was initially recorded in the CCIP Fund and a second time when
those same costs were transferred to the capital projects fund.
Status: Correction in progress
Condition:
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Sean Carpenter and Travis Storin
Date: July 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Epic Homes Capital Plan – Update & Next Steps
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item will provide an update to Council Finance regarding the Epic Homes capital plan and
next steps for capital agreements. Updates include:
• Review of on-bill financing history and capital recruitment process;
• Future capital stack;
• Loan terms and rates;
• Cash flow projections; and
• Next steps regarding securing and appropriation of third-party capital into a revolving
loan fund.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does the Council Finance Committee approve the presentation of financial / loan
agreements to the full City Council for consideration in August?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Fort Collins’ innovative On-Bill Finance (OBF) program supports a number of community and
City Council priorities, including ambitious goals around energy efficiency and renewables,
reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased equity and wellbeing of all residents (see
31TUEnergy PolicyU31T and 31TClimate Action Plan31T). Meeting these objectives will require, among other
activities, that greater numbers of property owners undertake comprehensive efficiency
improvements in the coming years, particularly for older, less-efficient rental properties which
make up a large percentage of the City’s housing stock. An ongoing and attractive financing
structure to support energy efficiency retrofits will be a critical element for success moving
forward.
On-Bill Financing History
The Home Efficiency Loan Program (HELP, aka OBF 1.0) operated successfully from January
2013 through early 2017 when the maximum outstanding loan balance of $1.6M was reached. In
2017, Elevations Credit Union was selected through an RFP process for energy loan financing.
Utilities staff qualify the efficiency project based on the rebate measures in the Efficiency Works
Home program; however, the loan origination and servicing are independent of Utilities
programs. With the implementation of Epic Loans, Elevations loans will continue to be an option
for interested customers.
Epic Loans (aka OBF 3.0) were revitalized in August 2018 during the Champions Phase of the
Bloomberg Mayors Challenge. The $100,000 award from the Champions Phase and a $200,000
grant from the Colorado Energy Office were used to kick off the revitalized on-bill financing.
Fort Collins is among nine winning cities for the Mayor Challenge, each receiving $1 M to
implement their winning idea. The grant agreement with Bloomberg Philanthropies was
completed in February 2019 and the initial $100,00 tranche of the $1M was awarded. As of
March 2019, Epic Loans has serviced over 20 on-bill loans for $280,000 to support energy
efficiency retrofits that would not have occurred without an attractive financing option.
Leveraging external capital is critical to achieving the long-term vision of Epic Loans and offers
a continuing source of funds to meet increasing customer demand for energy efficiency
financing. Epic Loans is designed to balance the programmatic objectives and financial
requirements of the City, while also meeting the needs and expectations of capital providers and
Utilities customers. The program team seeks to design an “evergreen” revolving loan fund
which:
• Supports residential energy efficiency upgrades for years to come;
• Scales to meet long-term efficiency objectives;
• Removes financial barriers to efficiency upgrades with attractive rates and terms;
• Aligns capital commitments with customer loan terms; and
• Minimizes the City and Utilities risk and administrative effort.
Council Finance Meetings Review
The Epic Homes team presented to Council Finance in November 2018 regarding the program
background and issuing an RFP for third-party capital sources. The City issued RFP #8842 in
December 2018 and the team pursued conversations and negotiations with respondents and other
potential capital providers.
The Epic Homes team presented to Council Finance again in May 2019 regarding the potential
capital sources and next steps for bringing capital agreements to Council. Staff have continued
negotiations with potential capital providers (including a locally-managed national bank, a
regional bank, Coalition for Green Capital, and the Colorado Energy Office) and received Legal
and Purchasing review of draft contracts.
Capital Stack and Terms
Capital sources for the Epic Loan need to align with the following high-level objectives:
• Attractive: The loan program must be able to provide attractive loan terms to customers,
specifically attractive interest rates.
• Scalable: The program must be scalable in support of Fort Collins ambitious energy
goals. It is anticipated that Fort Collins will upgrade thousands of homes in the coming
years.
• Parity: In both length and rate, borrowed capital should match loaned capital as closely as
possible.
• Simple: The implementation and administration of the program must be as simple as
possible for all parties, including customers, Utilities, and the capital partners.
Capital Stack
To provide sufficient financing for the expected number of projects, the short-term (3-4 year)
capital goal is $7M to $8M. This assumes $1.5M to $2M annually in energy efficiency project
financing. The longer-term capital goal is up to $16M in order to establish a self-sustaining
revolving loan. To meet the short-term capital goal, the Epic Homes team proposes the capital
stack below.
Capital Type Provider Term Rate Amount Status
Low or No
Cost
Bloomberg Philanthropies
– Champions Phase
Award
N/A 0% $100,000 Appropriated
July 2018
Bloomberg Philanthropies
– Award Initial Tranche
N/A 0% $100,000 Appropriated
March 2019
Bloomberg Philanthropies
– Award Second Tranche
N/A 0% $488,350 To be
appropriated
August 20
Colorado Energy Office –
Grant
N/A 0% $200,000 Appropriated
August 2018
Colorado Energy Office –
Loan
15 year 1-2% $1,000,000 To be
appropriated
August 20
External
Market
National Commercial
Bank
5 & 10
year
3.95% -
4.25%
$2,500,000 To be
appropriated
August 20
Regional Private Bank
(through National Green
Bank)
15 year 5.75% $2,500,000 To be
appropriated
August 20
Internal
Repayments of previously
paid loans
N/A 0% $374,000 Appropriated
as part of
revolving loan
fund in OBF
1.0
Total $7,262,350
Capital Provider Terms
Flexible structures which minimize the need for the City to carry non-deployed debt capital, such
as lines of credit versus term loans, are being pursued with the capital providers. In all cases, Fort
Collins Utilities would be the borrower, with the third-party funds being loaned to customers by
Utilities. Fort Collins Utilities would be responsible for the repayment to the capital provider. In
turn, Utilities customers carry the obligation for repayment of loans to the City via their utility
bill. Utilities has various code-specified tools for recourse of delinquent utility bills that makes
the risk profile for the Epic Loan portfolio extremely low. Third-party capital providers will have
a senior pledge on customer loan repayments and second position on Electric Utility revenues,
after the more senior pledge held by revenue bondholders. Finally, the City may pre-pay any of
these agreements in whole or in part at any time and without penalty.
Capital Source #1: Colorado Energy Office
• Amount: Up to $1,000,000
• Length: 15-years inclusive of draw period
• Draw period: None
• Fixed Rate: 1.25% to 2.25%
External Capital Source #2: National Commercial Bank
• Amount: Up to $2,500,000
• Length: 5-year and 10-year portions, inclusive of draw period
• Draw period: Up to 2 years with monthly draws based on customer loans
• Variable Rate Period: Fed SOFR plus X% (applies during draw period)
• Fixed Rate: 5-year or 10-year Treasury Note plus X% (rate becomes fixed after draw
period)
External Capital Source #3: National Green Bank
• Amount: Up to $2,500,000
• Length: 15-years inclusive of draw period
• Draw period: Up to 2 years with quarterly draws based on customer loans
• Variable Rate: Wall Street Journal Prime + 0.25% (currently 5.75%)
• Collateral: City will deposit 50% of drawn amount into FDIC-insured account
Policy Exceptions
Source #2 and #3 each have terms that interact or conflict with Financial Policy #7.
Debt Instrument Policy Issue
Source #1: State Energy Office • None
Source #2: 5- and 10-year National
Commercial Bank
• Variable rate for 2 years, managed in 6-
month intervals
Source #3: 15-year National Green Bank • Credit Enhancement, and
• Variable Rate, or
• Derivative Swap instrument
For source #2 (5- and 10-year commercial funds), staff has arranged for rate-lock rights during
the 2 year variable draw window which effectively stabilizes the debt service per policy.
For source #3 (15-year green bank funds), staff assesses an appropriate use of a credit
enhancement via the collateral pledge.
The note is written with variable rate for its duration, however. Staff has attempted to negotiate
rate lock-in rights during the draw period but the lender has been unable to flex. Alternatives are
to accept the terms of this deal, terminate the deal, or manage the variable rate risk via an interest
rate swap. The swap would qualify as a derivative instrument, which is also covered by policy as
an instrument the City should avoid.
Retail Rates and Terms
In December 2018, the financial officer’s rules and regulations were revised to remove language
about specific interest rates and allows for regular review and necessary adjustments of interest
rates based on third-party capital terms, and approval of the City CFO. The City will blend
capital sources and interest rates into loan offerings that recover the cost of capital, and include a
modest administrative premium to cover administrative costs in the future. The current loan
interest rates interest rates based on capital sources are as follows:
Loan Term Interest Rate
(Effective Jan. 2019)
Interest Rate
(Effective Jul 2019)
3 or 5 years 3.49% 3.75%
7 or 10 years 3.99% 4.25%
15 years 4.49% 4.75%
Next Steps
The Epic Homes team is finalizing lending agreements with third-party capital providers. The
Epic Homes team seeks approval from Council Finance to proceed with City Council
consideration of financial agreements during the August 20 Council session. A separate
ordinance will be prepared for each capital provider.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Epic Homes Capital Plan Presentation, July 15, 2019
1
July 15, 2019
Epic Homes External Capital Plan
Sean Carpenter, Climate Economy Advisor
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Agenda
•Brief review of May 2019 Council Finance discussion
•Projected “capital stack”
•Specifics of outside loan terms (3 separate agreements)
•Recently updated Epic loan retail rates and terms
•Proforma cash flow projections
•Risks / Q&A / Wrap Up
2Meeting Objective: Support from Council Finance to present contracts to Full City Council
Review & Updates from May 2019 Council Finance Meeting
November 2018 and May 2019 Finance Committee
•Issued RFP for third-party capital sources
•Reviewed history of On Bill Finance / Bloomberg Mayors Challenge / Epic Homes
•Reviewed short term (3-4 year) and long term (5+ year) capital objectives
•Approved staff to negotiate draft agreements with potential capital providers
•Legal: City Attorney to review draft contracts (completed)
•Purchasing: To review draft contracts (in process)
July 2019 Finance Committee
•Finance Committee in-depth review of currently drafted terms
•Request for approval for presentation to City Council for subsequent approval via separate ordinance for each selected lender
3
Core Tenets and Guardrails
Loan portfolio management
•Total target for capital for next 3-4 years: $7M -$8M
•Interest rate target: blended cost of capital, plus admin and risk premium
•Annual loans issued / originated: $1.5M -$2.0M
•Parity in length of term borrowed vs. length of term loaned
Other critical considerations
•No negative impact on Light & Power planned 2023 debt offering
•Protect Utilities credit rating &broadband’s coverage covenants
4
Future Capital Stack Summary
Capital Type Provider Term Rate Amount Status
Low or No Cost
Bloomberg Philanthropies –Champions
Phase Award
N/A 0%$100,000 Appropriated July 2018
Bloomberg Philanthropies –Award Initial
Tranche
N/A 0%$100,000 Appropriated March 2019
Bloomberg Philanthropies –Award Second
Tranche
N/A 0%$488,350 To be appropriated
August 20
Colorado Energy Office –Grant N/A 0%$200,000 Appropriated August 2018
Colorado Energy Office –Loan 15 year 1.25-2.25%$1,000,000 To be appropriated
concurrently with Green
Bank, below
External Market
National Commercial Bank 5 & 10 year 3.95% -
4.25%
Up to $2,500,000 To be appropriated
August 20
National Green Bank 15 year 5.75%Up to $2,500,000 TBD –under
negotiation
Internal
Previously authorized Light & Power
reserves
N/A 0%$374,000 Appropriated as part of
revolving loan fund in
OBF 1.0
Total $7,262,350 5
Capital Source #1: Colorado Energy Office
•Amount:Up to $1,000,000
•Length:15-years inclusive of draw period
•Draw period:None
•Fixed Rate:1.25% to 2.25%
•Staff to bring this agreement to Council on same timeline as 15-year bank
capital (Capital Source #3)
•Uncertainty in timing of contract
6
Capital Source #2: National Commercial Bank
•Amount:Up to $2,500,000
•Length:5-year and 10-year debt, inclusive of draw period
•Draw period:Up to 2 years with monthly draws based on customer loans
•Variable Rate Period (2 years):Based on Fed Secured Overnight Financing
Rate (SOFR) plus spread. Currently 3.95% -4.25%.
•Fixed Rate Period:Based on 5-year or 10-year Treasury Note plus spread
(rate becomes fixed on-demand by City or after draw period ends)
•City may pre-pay in whole or part at any time without penalty
•Staff intends to “lock in” fixed rates in 6-month intervals within 2-year
variable period
7
Capital Source #3: National Green Bank
•Amount:Up to $2,500,000
•Length:15-years inclusive of draw period
•Draw period:Up to 2 years with quarterly draws based on customer loans
•Variable Rate:Wall Street Journal Prime + 0.25% (currently 5.75%)
•Collateral:City will deposit 50% of drawn amount into FDIC-insured, interest
bearing account
•Lender unable to flex on the collateral nor on a fixed rate
•Would drive an exception request to the Council’s debt policy
•City may pre-pay in whole or part at any time without penalty
8
Policy Implications
9
Debt Instrument Policy Issue
Source #1: State Energy Office •None
Source #2: 5-and 10-year National
Commercial Bank
•Variable rate for 2 years, managed
in 6-month intervals
Source #3: 15-year National Green
Bank
•Credit Enhancement (collateral), and
•Variable Rate
or
•Derivative Swap instrument
August Ordinances will acknowledge any exceptions to policy
Policy Analysis and Exception
Current borrowing terms intersect with Council-adopted Financial Management
Policy #7 in the following three ways:
1)Credit Enhancements
Policy language:The City will not use credit enhancements unless the cost of the
enhancement is less than the differential between the net present value of the debt service
without enhancement and the net present value of the debt service with the enhancement.
Staff analysis:
•15-year facility stipulates collateral at 50% of the principal.
•Staff assesses an appropriate use of a credit enhancement.
•This pledge has been non-negotiable with the bank; NPV analysis does not apply.
10
Policy Analysis and Exception
2)Variable Rate Debt
Policy language:The City will normally not issue variable rate debt … certain circumstances
may warrant the issuance of variable rate debt, but the City will attempt to stabilize the debt
service payments through the use of an appropriate stabilization arrangement.
Staff analysis:
•The 5-and 10-year facility (Source #2) has rate-lock rights during 2-year draw window.
•Staff attempted to get same rights on the 15-year facility (Source #3); lender unable to flex.
•Alternatives: accept terms, terminate deal, or manage risk with interest rate swap (below)
3)Derivative instruments –swap
Policy language:Derivative type instruments and terms will be avoided.
Staff analysis: “Plain vanilla” interest swap has a cost premium but effectively locks in fixed
rate on the 15-year note if City is unwilling to accept variable rate risk
11
Epic Loan Retail Rates
•Targeting 100 basis point
spread to mitigate rate risk
during the variable period
•Blended capital cost: 3.33%
•Blended product yield: 4.30%
•Updated interest rates to be
adopted by CFO, effective
8/1/19 pursuant to Code
•City no longer offering 20 year
terms
Loan
Term
Projected
Cost of
Capital
Customer
Rate
(Effective
Jan. 2019)
Customer
Rate
(Effective
Aug. 2019)
3 or 5
years
2.69%3.49%3.75%
7 or 10
years
2.74%3.99%4.25%
15 years 4.25%4.49%4.75%
12
Risk Mitigation Techniques
•Interest rate risk
•Rate-lock options during the 2-year variable windows
•Targeted 100 basis point spread between cost of capital and product
•Respond to rapid market changes with timely updates to Epic rates
•Freeze new Epic customer offerings, as necessary
•Customer demand risk
•2-year line of credit model matches principal borrowed vs. Epic loans
•If undrawn amounts remain at end of 2-years, City may pursue
renewal, draw remaining amounts, or close out the line(s)
•Customer default risk
13
Wrap Up
Next steps
•Proceed to Council 8/20 and 9/3 for readings of each capital source
•Develop recurring framework for updated annual cash flow
projections and reporting/measurement
•Continue recruiting market-rate and low-cost capital
(~2/3 –1/3 split, respectively) to solve for 5+ year objectives
14
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan +
Parameters
Ordinances at
Council (8/20)
Second
Readings
(9/3)
Sign 5-and
10-year notes
Sign 15-year
variable note
Sign State
Energy
Office note
Questions
•Does the Committee support staff analysis of the debt policy and
the exceptions request?
•Does the Committee have a preferred alternative for managing
Source #3 (i. accept terms; ii.terminate deal or; iii. manage risk via
separate instrument)
•Does the Committee approve the presentation of financial / loan
agreements to the full City Council for consideration in August?
15
16
3rd Party Capital
16
Backup Slides
Capital Recruitment Process To-Date
•Feb. –Nov. 2018: Multiple meetings held with Investment Banks, Hedge Funds,
Impact Investing Firms and Local and Regional banks
•External Capital RFP #8842 for the EPIC program issued in December 2018
•Grant capital received from Bloomberg and Colorado Energy Office (CEO)
•Negotiations begun with RFP respondents in January 2019
•1 National Bank
•2 Regional Banks (Local and Upper Midwest)
•Brokered discussions with Coalition for Green Capital (CGC)
•Connections with impact investors via Bloomberg
•Colorado Energy Office $1M loan
17
On-Bill Finance 3.0: Epic Loans
•Revitalized August 2018 as part of Bloomberg Mayors Challenge champions phase
•$100k grant from Bloomberg, $200k grant from Colorado Energy Office
•Winners announced October 2018, $1M prize
•Grant agreement completed February, $100k initial tranche
•Effective January 2019 interest rates
•3 or 5 years -3.49%
•7 or 10 years -3.99%
•15 or 20 years -4.49%
18
On-Bill Finance 1.0
•Pilot began in 2013
•$1.6M revolving loan fund from Light &
Power reserves established by Council
•Low interest rate (2.5%) and long loan
terms (up to 20 years) led to rapid
uptake
•Loans repaid on owner’s utility bill
•~25% of $1.6M repaid to date
•0% default rate 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
Ap
r
Ju
l
Se
p
Ja
n
Ju
n
Au
g
Oc
t
De
c
Ma
r
Ju
l
Se
p
No
v
Ja
n
Ma
r
Ma
y
Ju
l
Se
p
No
v
2013 2014 2015 2016
Lo
a
n
C
o
u
n
t
Lo
a
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
Sum of LoanAmount Count of ProjectIdentifier
Transition to off-bill banking partner (v2.0) showed drop in participation → highlighted need for v3.0 19
Loan Stats
Loan Count & Amounts Percent of Projects Using Loan
20
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
U
s
i
n
g
L
o
a
n
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Lo
a
n
C
o
u
n
t
Lo
a
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
Sum of LoanAmount Count of ProjectIdentifier
Guiding Principles
21
Simultaneous Solutions
21
Indoor air quality/health
Energy efficiency
Rental split incentive
On-bill financing3rdparty capital
Partnerships
Innovation
Epic
Homes
Cash Flow Analysis
22
•Ample capital to meet projected demand over 5 years
•Planned to $4.7M of loans issued over 5 years (most likely scenario) vs. full
deployment of $7.3M of available capital (highest demand scenario)
•If full deployment of capital stack occurred City remains cashflow positive
2nd Half
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Cash (authorized reserves)370$ 80$ 100$ 170$ 250$
+ Income from Existing Loans 70$ 140$ 140$ 130$ 120$
- Deployment of New Loans (380)$ (1,070)$ (1,320)$ (1,070)$ (850)$
+ Income from New Loans 10$ 120$ 290$ 450$ 570$
+ Pull from Lenders -$ 870$ 1,180$ 940$ 720$
- Repayments to Lenders -$ (50)$ (210)$ (380)$ (440)$
End Cash 80$ 100$ 170$ 250$ 370$
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks
Date: July 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Metro District by Landmark Homes for the Northfield Metropolitan District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The developer of the proposed Northfield Metro District has submitted a Metro District Service
Plan to support a proposed development of approximately 56 acres located north of Vine Street
on the west side of Lindenmeier Road/Lemay Avenue (southeast of the Lake Canal and north of
the to-be designated historic Alta Vista neighborhood). The development is anticipated to
include approximately 442 attached housing units, of which a minimum of approximately
fourteen percent (14%) will be designated and sold as deed-restricted affordable housing, and the
majority of the rest of the units will be sold as attainable housing units. The Planned
Development is also anticipated to include a mixed-use center that will offer light commercial
use on the first floor, residential for-rent units on the second floor, and small amenities open to
the public. The estimated population at build-out is 1,139. Construction of the Planned
Development is planned to be completed by year 2026.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council
evaluation of the Landmark Development’s proposed Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Landmark Homes is proposing a residential community situated within walking distance of the
City’s Old Town. The Planned Development incorporates goals of the following plans: City
Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Master Street Plan, Nature in the City Strategic Plan, Natural
Areas Master Plan, Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan, Northside Neighborhoods Plan,
Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Metro District will support 56 acres of planned development located north of Vine
Street on the west side of Lindenmeier Road/Lemay Avenue (southeast of the Lake Canal and
north of the to-be designated historic Alta Vista neighborhood). The project anticipates
constructing:
• Approximately 442 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family);
• Minimum of 14.7% affordable (65 units)
• The remaining housing units in the project are expected to be priced in an attainable
range, considered by other cities to be between 80% and 120% of AMI.
• A mixed-use center that will offer light commercial use on the first floor, residential for-
rent units on the second floor, and small amenities open to the public
• An enhanced setback from the Lake Canal Wetlands to further protect them from new
development; and
• On-site Regional Trail as well as the off- site pedestrian connection for the northeastern
portion up to the intersection at Lemay Avenue and Conifer Street.
METRO DISTRICT
Landmark Homes has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Northfield Metropolitan
District Nos. 1-3 (the “Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical
public infrastructure and other site costs reducing the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of three Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver
the proposed Northfield development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the
next nine plus years and support an estimated population of 1,139. A few highlights about the
proposed Service Plan, include:
• Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $13.3 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 an additional 10 mills (total levy 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 $16 million to cover a
portion of the estimated $31 million in project costs
• Regional Mill Levy – The regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate
Mill Levy Maximum
Public Improvements
The Service Plans anticipate using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the
maximum amount of $16 million to fund all or a portion of the following $31 million in public
improvements (details available in Exhibits D and G of the Service Plan):
• Earthwork and Grading – Approximately $6.7 million in earthwork and site
preparation costs associated with the proposed project.
• Roadway Improvements – Approximately $6.4 million in costs to construct asphalt
infrastructure for streets and parking on the project, including Suniga arterial.
• Water Improvements – Approximately $0.6 million in costs to construct potable water
infrastructure supporting the project.
• Sanitary Sewer Improvement – Approximately $0.7 million constructing the sanitary
sewer infrastructure, including upsizing, both on- and off-site for the project
• Storm Sewer Improvements – Approximately $1.9 million in costs to construct the
main storm sewer system and infrastructure for the project.
• Open Space/Landscaping – Approximately $4.1 million in costs for Regional Trail
construction, neighborhood park development, development of clubhouse/pool, and other
landscaping
• Misc. / Amenity – Approximately $5.7 million in miscellaneous costs associated with the
project, such as engineering, inspection, and administrative costs, plus a 20%
contingency estimate of $5.2 million.
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 is described below (details in Exhibit G of the Service Plan):
Northfield Metro District Public Benefits Evaluation
Non-Basic
Improveme
nts
Total Benefit Per-Unit Benefit Notes
Environmental Sustainability
Solar Energy
1) 13-14 kW of solar power per "Flats" building $448,000 $1,014 $28,000 per building; 180 units benefit
Electric Vehicles
1) 240V outlets $375,000 $848 In every garage, besides the affordable homes
2) EV charging stations $30,000 $68
Critical Public Infrastructure
Major Arterial Development
1) On-Site Suniga Road Upsizing $1,682,640 $3,807 Upsizing cost from a typical 2-lane connector
1)Off-Site Suniga Road $774,800 $1,753 Offsite construction from Redwood to Lake Canal
Pedestrian Connectivity
1) Regional Trail Construction $199,050 $450
Off-Site Infrastructure
1) Off-Site Sewer Construction & Upsizing $538,220 $1,218 To benefit Northfield and the surrounding areas from a failing sewer line
2) Lemay Overpass Contribution $250,000 $566 Estimate
Smart Growth Management
Increased Density
1) Alley-Loaded Homes $820,800 $1,857 Metro District maintained
Public Spaces
1) Reduction in Allowed Density/ More Open Space $4,474,100 $10,122 Northfield is at 8 units/acre vs the allowed 12 units/acre per the "affordable
housing project" land use definition
2) Clubhouse & Swimming Pool $2,000,000 $4,525
3)Increased Landscaped Area (46.9% of site)$723,800 $1,638 Landscaped area beyond a typical project
4) Alta Vista Buffer Area $125,000 $283 Separates and protects the Alta Vista neighborhood from Suniga
5) Public amenity area $5,000 $11 Public use amenities stationed along regional trail
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing
1) 14.7% (65 units) of deed-restricted affordable housing $4,420,000 $10,000 $68,000 subsidy per unit to price below 80% AMI
Attainable Housing
1) 85.3% (377 units) of attainably priced housing Difficult to Quant. Difficult to Quan. Remainder of project will be priced in a range that someone making 80% to 120%
of AMI could afford
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS $16,866,410 $38,159
Disclaimer: The benefits listed above represent a preliminary estimate in order to provide illustrative representation of the value for public benefit. The illustration
is non-binding pending the execution of a development agreement
Units: 442
•Affordable Housing - The financing and reimbursement options created by the
Metropolitan Districts will enable the Northfield project to deliver a minimum of 160
units or 10% of the total project at affordable rates. These units will be delivered under
the following guidelines:
o For Sale: A minimum of 65 units (14.7%) will be for sale
o Enforceability: Prior to or concurrent with Development Agreement, Northfield
will create legally enforceable guarantees for affordable housing commitments.
Potential options include, contract with City for Land Bank, deed restriction,
reservation of acreage
•Environmental Sustainability:
Energy Conservation - Northfield plans to include solar panels on the 12-unit
condominium buildings and the community clubhouse that will provide up to 14
kilowatts of power per building. These solar panels will provide the power needed for the
common area spaces, including elevators. The renewable energy provided by the solar
panels will also decrease the common-space maintenance burden for residents in the
condominium buildings. Northfield will also deliver a 240V outlet in every garage to
provide a place for the electric vehicle fast-charging stations and further encourage
residents to drive eco-friendly cars.
Environmental Conservation - The project provides an enhanced setback from the Lake
Canal Wetlands to further protect them from new development. The connections over
Lake Canal will be constructed with low impact box culverts and abide by and exceed
Army Core of Engineers standards for historic protected wetlands. Landscaped areas will
focus on low-water usage designs. Initial hydro-zone calculations indicate Northfield will
use 7.63 gallons of water per square foot, well below the City’s limit of 15 gallons of
water per square foot
•Off-Site Sewer Improvements - Northfield plans to replace and upsize the sewer line
from Vine Drive, around Alta Vista, and along a portion of Lemay Avenue.
•Regional Trail - Rather than simply designating an on-site easement for the future trail
construction by the City, Northfield plans to finance and deliver the on-site Regional
Trail as well as the off- site pedestrian connection for the northeastern portion up to the
intersection at Lemay Avenue and Conifer Street.
•Community Gateway - Northfield will promote the City’s objective of preserving and
enhancing historic resources. The southeastern edge of Northfield borders the to-be-
designated historic Alta Vista neighborhood. To blend the transition to new development
and pay homage to the neighborhood’s history, Northfield will feature an Interpretive
Historical Park and Gateway Features bordering Alta Vista. These additions were
developed in collaboration with neighbors in the Alta Vista neighborhood and would
provide an extraordinary benefit to the City as a whole.
•Economic Health Outcomes - Northfield is located within walking and/or biking
distance to some of the largest employment hubs in the City, including City of Fort
Collins Municipal Offices, Colorado State University, Woodward, and New Belgium
Brewing. Northfield's proximity to these hubs and affordable and its attainable price
points set the project apart from other recent residential developments in Fort Collins.
Through Northfield, the City will gain high-quality, attainable housing near the City’s
economic and cultural core, helping reduce congestion in the City and provide workforce
housing.
Policy
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Northfield complies with the City’s existing policy.
POLICY EVALUATION & PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
The proposed update to the policy supports the formation of a Metro District regardless of
development type when a District delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits
should be: (1) aligned with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary
public benefits are provided by the Metro District or by the entity developing the Metro District
because Metro Districts exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be practically
provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable
basis. The Service Plan for the Northfield 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
pricing of the remaining homes at 80-120% of AMI meets the community’s needs for
housing at that income level. Northfield is located within walking and/or biking distance
to some of the largest employment hubs.
Environmental – Some benefit is expected from the proposed solar, but overall the
proposed environmental public benefits were interpreted as weak by staff under the
current proposal. Additional clarity is needed to assess any improved benefit.
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 N/A
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) and clearer expectations around deed restriction
over time.
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, the City reviewed the Financial Plan in partnership with
Economic & Planning Systems (See Attachment 7). 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 Northfield in the context of other
new North College developments: Waterfield, Water’s Edge, and Montava.
•EPS found it difficult to assess if there would be “extraordinary benefits” with the
following: clubhouse and swimming pool, allowed density/more open space, and
increased landscaped area.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Staff Presentation
2.Project Vicinity Map
3.Public Benefit Evaluation Matrix
4. Triple Bottom Line Scan One pager
5. Consolidated Service Plan for Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
6.Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 Service Plan Clarification Letter for Council
Finance Committee Packet
7. Economic & Planning Systems Financial Assessment
1Northfield Metro District Request Preview
Josh BirksJuly 15, 2019
Attachment 1
Questions for the Committee
•What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Northfield Metro District Service
Plan?
2
Project Description
•6+ Year Multi
Phase Master
Planned Project
•442 Residential
Units
•14.7%
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 N/A
Public Improvements
5
Improvement Description Estimated Cost
(millions)
Earthwork and Grading Primarily grading $6.7
Roadway Improvements Roads, Parking Lots, Signage, Lighting $6.4
Water Improvements Waterlines $0.6
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Sewer infrastructure, including upsizing,
both on-and off-site for the project $0.7
Storm Sewer Improvements Main infrastructure $1.9
Landscaping
Regional Trail construction, neighborhood
park development, development of
clubhouse/pool, and other landscaping
$4.1
Misc. / Amenity Engineering, inspection, and administrative
costs $5.7
Contingency Costs Contingency (20% of construction)$5.2
Total $31.3
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
Policy Evaluation & Public Benefits
7
Solar panels on the 140
(40% of total units) units in
condominium buildings and
the community clubhouse
sufficient enough to provide
up to 14 kilowatts of power
per building.
Affordable
Housing
15% of homes will be 80%
AMI or less (65 units) with
20-year deed restriction.
240V outlet in every garage Workforce
Housing
The remaining 85.3% (377)
of the total number of
dwelling units will be priced
for sale for someone making
80% to 120% of AMI for
attainable housing option.
Water/Energy
Conservation
Vine & Timberline
contributions
Walkability/
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
A Public Amenity Area
would be next to the mixed-
use building and offer
amenities such as a dog-
wash station, bike repair or
pump station, or other
similar public use features.
Multimodal
Transportation
Availability of
Transit
Interpretive Historical Park
and Gateway Features
bordering Alta Vista.
Enhance
Resiliency Public Space Neighborhood parks;
Clubhouse/Swimming pool.
Increase
Renewable
Capacity
See GHG reduction Mixed-Use
Clubhouse will offer light
commercial use on the first
floor.
Off-Site
Infill/
Redevelopment
Northfield plans to replace
and upsize the sewer line
from Vine Drive, around Alta
Vista, and along a portion of
Lemay Avenue.Economic Health
Northfield is located within
walking and/or biking
distance to some of the
largest employment hubs.
Environmental Sustainability Critical Public Infrastructure Smart Growth Management Strategic Priorities
GHG Reduction On-Site
The Metro District will
finance and deliver the on-
site Regional Trail as well as
the off-site pedestrian
connection for the
northeastern portion up to
the intersection at Lemay
Avenue and Conifer Street.
Increase
Density Alley load homes.
8
Triple Bottom Line Scan (TBL-S) Results
Key TBL-S Results
•The proposed 15% affordable housing (65 units) would
have positive impacts for both economic and social
sustainability.
•85% of the homes will be priced at attainable price
levels, targeting families making 80-120% of AMI, “the
missing middle”.
•Inclusion of solar panels on 40% of homes. Solar will
help power the community center.
Mitigation Strategies
•Could benefit from committing to more specific
environmental public benefits (e.g. DOE Net Zero Ready
homes, LEED standards) and water conservation
efforts.
Questions for the Committee
•What additional information does the committee
recommend including for the Council evaluation
of the proposed Northfield Metro District Service
Plan?
9
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Solar panels on the 140 (40%
of total units) units in
condominium buildings and
the community clubhouse
sufficient enough to provide
up to 14 kilowatts of power
per building.
Affordable
Housing
15% of homes will be 80%
AMI or less (65 units) with 20-
year deed restriction.
240V outlet in every garage Workforce
Housing
The remaining 85.3% (377) of
the total number of dwelling
units will be priced for sale for
someone making 80% to
120% of AMI for attainable
housing option.
Water/Energy
Conservation
Initial hydro-zone calculations
indicate Northfield will use
6.87 gallons of water per
square foot, below the City’s
limit of 15 gallons per square
foot.
Vine & Timberline
contributions
Walkability/
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
A Public Amenity Area would
be next to the mixed-use
building and offer amenities
such as a dog-wash station,
bike repair or pump station, or
other similar public use
features.
Multimodal
Transportation
Availability of
Transit
Interpretive Historical Park
and Gateway Features
bordering Alta Vista.
Enhance
Resiliency Public Space Neighborhood parks;
Clubhouse/Swimming pool.
Increase
Renewable
Capacity
See GHG reduction Mixed-Use
Clubhouse will offer light
commercial use on the first
floor.
GHG Reduction On-Site
The Metro District will finance
and deliver the on-site
Regional Trail as well as the
off-site pedestrian connection
for the northeastern portion
up to the intersection at
Lemay Avenue and Conifer
Street.
Increase
Density Alley load homes.
PUBLIC BENEFIT/POLICY ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Environmental Sustainability Critical Public Infrastructure Smart Growth Management Strategic Priorities
Off-Site
Infill/
Redevelopment
Northfield plans to replace
and upsize the sewer line
from Vine Drive, around Alta
Vista, and along a portion of
Lemay Avenue.Economic Health
Northfield is located within
walking and/or biking distance
to some of the largest
employment hubs.
Northfield Metro District Proposal: Landmark Homes
Service Plan proposal to create a metro district of approximately 56 acres located north of Vine Street
on the west side of Lindenmeier Road/Lemay Avenue (southeast of the Lake Canal and north of the to-
be designated historic Alta Vista neighborhood). The developer proposes that metro district tax benefits
make it easier for the Landmark 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
•Inclusion of solar panels on 40% of
homes. Solar will help power the
community center.
•EV chargers will be installed in all
homes.
Negative
•None Identified
Positive
•85% of the homes will be priced at
attainable price levels, targeting
families making 80-120% of AMI,
“the missing middle”.
•Pricing structure will reduce costs
of living in the community.
•Additional housing at this level may
impact workforce talent attraction
and retention.
•May promote additional
redevelopment in that corridor
along Vine and accelerating
connectivity through Transfort.
Negative
•None Identified
Positive
•Build out of regional trail will help
promote access to nature and
physical activity.
•Attainability and affordable housing
in proximity to jobs may promote
economic mobility.
•Includes 15% of units designated
and restricted affordable ownership
product.
•Attainable price point introduces
more opportunity to enter
homeownership and lock in stable
housing cost.
Negative
•None Identified
Tradeoffs
•Development is located near the intersection of Vine/Lemay and will likely exacerbate existing traffic challenges.
•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 committing to more specific environmental public benefits (e.g. DOE Net Zero Ready
homes, LEED standards) and water conservation efforts.
Key Alignment: NLSH 1.1: Improve access to quality housing that is affordable to a board range of income levels; ENV
4.1: Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals; ECON 3.4 - Foster infill
and redevelopment that enhances the community.
Attachment 4
•Impacts within environmental area are neutral to positive and largely indirect because Landmark
Homes’ proposal demonstrates only some benefits to these areas. Their proposal could
implement additional energy and water savings initiatives.
•Economic impacts are driven mostly by the development pricing, as well as it’s proximity to
major employers.
•The social impacts were strongest, as they were more direct and positive due to the promise of
15% affordable for-sale housing and pricing of the remaining 85% at 80-120% AMI.
CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
FOR
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-3
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared by:
WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA & WALDRON
2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000
Centennial, CO 80122
Submitted On: May 9, 2019
Approved on: [__________________]
Attachment 5
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
A. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................... 1
B. Need for the Districts. ............................................................................................. 1
C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts’ Service Plan. ....................................... 2
D. City Approvals. ....................................................................................................... 2
II. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 2
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION .................................................................................... 5
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS &
ASSESSED VALUATION ................................................................................................ 6
A. Project and Planned Development. ......................................................................... 6
B. Public Benefits. ....................................................................................................... 6
C. Assessed Valuation. ................................................................................................ 7
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ......................................................... 7
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE .............................................................................................. 8
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS ............................................................... 8
A. General Grant of Powers. ........................................................................................ 8
B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. ... 8
1. Eminent Domain Restriction....................................................................... 8
2. Fee Limitation ............................................................................................. 9
3. Operations and Maintenance....................................................................... 9
4. Fire Protection Restriction .......................................................................... 9
5. Public Safety Services Restriction .............................................................. 9
6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ....................................... 9
7. Golf Course Construction Restriction ......................................................... 9
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction ........................................... 10
9. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................ 10
10. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation ................................................ 10
11. Sub-district Restriction ............................................................................. 10
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation .............................................................. 10
13. Special Assessments ................................................................................. 11
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ............................................. 11
A. Development Standards. ....................................................................................... 12
B. Contracting. ........................................................................................................... 12
ii
C.Land Acquisition and Conveyance. ...................................................................... 12
D.Equal Employment and Discrimination. ............................................................... 12
IX.FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT......................................................................... 13
A.Financial Plan........................................................................................................ 13
B.Mill Levies. ........................................................................................................... 13
1.Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ............................................................... 13
2.Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies ........................... 13
3.Operating Mill Levy ................................................................................. 14
4.Gallagher Adjustments.............................................................................. 14
5.Excessive Mill Levy Pledges .................................................................... 14
6. Refunding Debt ......................................................................................... 14
7.Maximum Debt Authorization .................................................................. 14
C.Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. ................................ 15
D.Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. ....................................... 15
E.Disclosure to Purchasers. ...................................................................................... 15
F.External Financial Advisor. .................................................................................. 15
G.Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. ............................................................................. 16
H.Security for Debt. .................................................................................................. 16
I.TABOR Compliance. ............................................................................................ 16
J.Districts’ Operating Costs. .................................................................................... 16
X.REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................... 17
A.Regional Mill Levy Authority. ............................................................................. 17
B.Regional Mill Levy Imposition. ............................................................................ 17
C.City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. .................................................. 17
D.Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. .................................... 17
E.Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. ...................................................... 18
1.Intergovernmental Agreement .................................................................. 18
2. No Intergovernmental Agreement ............................................................ 18
F.Regional Mill Levy Term. .................................................................................... 18
G.Completion of Regional Improvements. ............................................................... 18
H.City Authority to Require Imposition. .................................................................. 18
I.Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. ...................................... 18
J.Gallagher Adjustment. .......................................................................................... 18
XI.CITY FEES ....................................................................................................................... 19
iii
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................... 19
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS ......................................................... 19
A. General. ................................................................................................................. 19
B. Board Meetings. .................................................................................................... 19
C. Report Requirements. ........................................................................................... 19
1. Narrative ................................................................................................... 19
2. Financial Statements ................................................................................. 20
3. Capital Expenditures ................................................................................. 20
4. Financial Obligations ................................................................................ 20
5. Board Contact Information ....................................................................... 20
6. Other Information ..................................................................................... 20
D. Reporting of Significant Events. ........................................................................... 20
E. Failure to Submit................................................................................................... 21
XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS ................................................................................. 21
XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 21
XVI. DISSOLUTION ................................................................................................................ 22
XVII. SANCTIONS .................................................................................................................... 22
XVIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY .............................................. 23
XIX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23
XX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ..................................................................................... 23
iv
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A-1 Legal Description of District No. 1 Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-2 Legal Description of District No. 2 Boundaries
EXHIBIT A-3 Legal Description of District No. 3 Boundaries
EXHIBIT B-1 District No. 1 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-2 District No. 2 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT B-3 District No. 3 Boundary Map
EXHIBIT C Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT D Public Improvement Cost Estimates
EXHIBIT E Public Improvement Maps
EXHIBIT F Financial Plan
EXHIBIT G Public Benefits
EXHIBIT H Disclosure Notice
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 or part of the Public Improvements
for the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the Districts.
The primary purpose of the Districts will be to finance the construction of 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 provided in Section X of this Service Plan, 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 Sections
XVII and XVIII of this Service Plan.
B. Need for the Districts.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in
the immediate vicinity of the Districts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake
the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and
financing of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the Districts is
therefore necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided
in the most economic manner possible.
2
C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts’ Service Plan.
The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the Districts to
provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and
redevelopment of the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts
but in doing so, to also establish in the Service Plan the means by which the Regional
Improvements and Public Benefits will be provided. Except as specifically provided in this
Service Plan, all Debt is expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no
longer than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties and at a tax
mill levy no higher than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees imposed for the payment of Debt
shall be due no later than upon the issuance of a building permit unless a majority of the Board
which imposes such a Fee is composed of End Users as provided in Section VII.B.2. 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 the
Districts may each 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,
which plan shall include, without limitation, any development agreement required by the City
Code.
Board or Boards: means the duly constituted board of directors of the Districts, or the
Boards of Directors of all of the Districts, in the aggregate.
Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial
obligations for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax
3
mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include contracts through
which a District procures or provides services or tangible property.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality.
City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
City Council: means the City Council of the City.
City Manager: means the City Manager of the City.
C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property 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 of this Service Plan.
Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual
rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property.
District: means any of the following metropolitan districts: Northfield Metropolitan
District No. 1, Northfield Metropolitan District No. 2 and Northfield Metropolitan District No.
3, as each are 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. 1 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 1 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit B-1 and incorporated by reference.
District No. 2 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 2 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit B-2 and incorporated by reference.
District No. 3 Boundary Map: means the map of the District No. 3 Boundaries attached
hereto as Exhibit B-3 and incorporated by reference.
4
Districts: means Northfield Metropolitan District No. 1, Northfield Metropolitan District
No. 2 and Northfield Metropolitan District No. 3, 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 & Co., an External Advisor, in accordance with the
requirements of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be
financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue
derived from property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all
District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the Districts are permitted to issue
as set forth in Section IX.B.7 of this Service Plan.
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 a District’s administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in this
Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public Improvements, and
imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of this Service Plan.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties
in the Service Area, commonly referred to as Northfield, under an Approved Development Plan.
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the
Planned Development.
5
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 collectively within the District No. 1 Boundaries,
District No. 2 Boundaries, and District No. 3 Boundaries, all as may be amended from time to time
as further set forth in this Service Plan and the Special District Act.
Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as
amended.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved
by the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any other
applicable law.
State: means the State of Colorado.
TABOR: means Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution.
Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the Service Area 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 56.3 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; and a legal description and map of the District No. 3
Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A-3 and Exhibit B-3, respectively. It is anticipated that
6
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
Section V of 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.
Situated within walking distance of the City’s Old Town, the Planned Development
is a proposed 56.3-acre, mixed-use community located west of Lindenmeier Road, southeast of
the Lake Canal and north of the to-be designated historic Alta Vista neighborhood. The Planned
Development targets a number of the City’s stretch outcomes and critical objectives, including
neighborhood livability and social health, environmental health, and transportation. The Planned
Development incorporates goals of the following plans: the City Plan, Transportation Master Plan,
Master Street Plan, Nature in the City Strategic Plan, Natural Areas Master Plan, Paved
Recreational Trail Master Plan, Northside Neighborhoods Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle
Master Plan.
The Planned Development is anticipated to include approximately 442 attached
housing units, of which a minimum of approximately fourteen percent (14%) will be designated
and sold as deed-restricted affordable housing, and the majority of the rest of the units will be sold
as attainable housing units. The Planned Development is also anticipated to include a mixed-use
center that will offer light commercial use on the first floor, residential for-rent units on the second
floor, and small amenities open to the public. The estimated population at build-out is 1,139.
Construction of the Planned Development is planned to be completed by year 2026.
In accordance with the Financial Plan, the estimated assessed valuation of the Planned
Development in 2024 is estimated to be $8,525,353 for residential and $181,867 for commercial,
and in 2029 it is estimated to be $13,129,996 for residential and $204,346 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 providing the Public Improvements described in Exhibit F and the
Regional Improvements, 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
and water conservation, and enhanced multimodal transportation, all of which are specifically
described in Exhibit I attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the
“Public Benefits”).
7
Therefore, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service
Plan, no District shall be authorized to issue any Debt or to impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees
for payment of Debt unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits specifically related to the
phase of the Planned Development 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 any such intergovernmental agreement
must be approved by the City Council by resolution;
2. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more
Developers of the Planned Development, each such Developer must either (i) enter into a
development agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable Approved Development
Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public Benefits before
the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be
built under the Approved Development Plan for that phase of the Planned Development, or (ii)
secure such obligations with a surety bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City,
and all such development agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution; or
3. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided in part by one or more
of the Districts 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 all such agreements must be approved by the City
Council by resolution.
C. Assessed Valuation.
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately $2,024 and, at
build out is expected to be $13,334,342. These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably
discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
The Districts shall not add any 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.
8
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
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,
including design review and covenant enforcement 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. These new powers and
authority shall only be available to be exercised by the Districts if the City Council first approves
a Service Plan Amendment to specifically allow the exercise of such powers or authority by the
Districts.
B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and
Limitations.
The Districts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public
Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the
Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as
hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall
constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all
remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Sections XVII and XVIII of this Service
Plan:
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 their 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.
9
2. Fee Limitation
Any Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service
Plan, shall not be imposed by the Districts upon or collected from an End User. In addition, Fees
imposed for the payment of Debt shall not be imposed unless and until the requirements for
securing the delivery of the District’s portion of the Public Benefits have been satisfied in
accordance with Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Fee
limitation shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation, maintenance, repair or
replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of the Districts.
3. Operations and Maintenance
The primary purpose of the Districts is to plan for, design, acquire,
construct, install, relocate, redevelop and finance the Public Improvements. The Districts shall
dedicate the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners’
association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City Code,
provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The Districts are each
specifically authorized to operate and maintain all or any part or all of the Public Improvements
not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity until
such time as the District is dissolved.
4. Fire Protection Restriction
The 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
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,
10
operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement with the City approved by the City Council.
8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct,
install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation
facilities and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction
project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written approval from the
City Council as a Service Plan Amendment.
9. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Acknowledging that the City and other existing special districts operating
within the City currently own and operate treatment facilities for potable water and wastewater
that are available to provide services to the Service Area, the Districts shall not plan, design,
acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain such facilities
without obtaining the City Council’s prior written approval either by intergovernmental agreement
or as a Service Plan Amendment.
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 Council.
12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the Districts shall obtain
the certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows:
We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within
the meaning of the District’s Service Plan.
We [I] certify that (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
11
provisions, is reasonable considering the financial
circumstances of the District.
13. Special Assessments
The Districts shall not impose special assessments without the prior written
approval of the City Council.
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit 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 $31,258,615 in 2019 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 and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section
IV.B of this Service Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the
preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and
approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede
the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements. Provided,
however, any agreement approved and entered into 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.
Except as otherwise provided by an agreement approved under Section IV.B of this Service
Plan: (i) the design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will
be determined by the Districts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned
Development and the availability of funding sources; (ii) the Districts may, in their 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; (iii) the Districts shall also be permitted to allocate costs
between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in their discretion; and
(iv) to the extent that the City reimburses a developer for Public Improvements that would
otherwise be reimbursable under the Special District Act, the District shall not reimburse the
developer for such Public Improvements.
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.
12
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain
operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Development Standards.
The Districts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and
constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other
governmental entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The Districts directly, or indirectly
through any Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain
applicable permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing
such work. Unless waived by the City Council, the Districts shall be required, in accordance with
the City Code, to post a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for
any Public Improvements to be constructed by the Districts. Such development security may be
released in the City 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,
State law or any agreement approved and entered into under Section IV.B of this Service Plan.
Any limitation or requirement concerning the time within which the City must review the Districts’
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.
13
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements.
A. Financial Plan.
The Districts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit 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
is based on economic, political and industry conditions as they presently exist and reasonable
projections and estimates of future conditions. These projections and estimates are not to be
interpreted as the only method of implementation of the District’s goals and objectives but rather
a representation of one feasible alternative. Other financial structures may be used so long as they
are in compliance with this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of
this 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.
14
3. Operating Mill Levy
The Districts may each impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to fifty (50)
mills until the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once a District imposes a Debt Mill Levy of
any amount, that District’s Operating Mill Levy shall not exceed ten (10) mills at any point.
4. Gallagher Adjustments
In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the
Taxable Property changes after January 1, 2019, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut
or abatement, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy, and
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect
such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the Districts’ Boards in good
faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as
adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January
1, 2019. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed
valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation.
5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges
Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy
pledge, that exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall not be an
authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has been approved by a
Service Plan Amendment.
6. Refunding Debt
The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt
refunding purposes if: (1) a majority of the issuing District’s Board is composed of End Users and
have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding will result in
a net present value savings.
7. Maximum Debt Authorization
The Districts anticipate approximately $31,258,615 in project costs in 2019
dollars as set forth in Exhibit F and anticipate issuing approximately $16,000,000 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. In addition, a District shall not issue any Debt unless and until
delivery of the District’s Public Benefits have been secured as required in Section IV.B of this
Service Plan. The Districts collectively shall not issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt
Authorization. Bonds, loans, notes or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count
against the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts must obtain from the City Council a
Service Plan Amendment prior to issuing Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization.
15
C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount.
The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt
is issued. The maximum interest rate on any Debt, including any defaulting interest rate, is not
permitted to exceed twelve percent (12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three
percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan,
the Special District Act, other applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the
issuance of public securities.
D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification.
The Districts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion
on the market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payed
by the Districts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The Districts shall provide this written
opinion to the City before issuing any Debt based on it.
E. Disclosure to Purchasers.
In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings
units in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other
taxing governmental entities, the 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
16
signed letter from the External Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of
the Debt, stating the Advisor’s opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term,
redemption feature, couponing, credit spreads, payment, closing date, and other material
transaction details of the proposed Debt serve the best interest of the issuing District.
Debt shall not be undertaken by the Districts if found to be unreasonable by the
External Financial Advisor.
G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers.
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 TABOR. In the discretion of the
Districts’ Boards, the Districts may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and
operate facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a
District will remain under the control of the District’s Board.
J. Districts’ Operating Costs.
The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and
administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial
operations, are anticipated to be One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), which will be eligible
for reimbursement from Debt proceeds.
17
In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require
operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated
and maintained. The first year’s operating budget is estimated to be Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000).
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from
property taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy, subject to the
limitations set forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as from other revenues legally available to the
Districts.
X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Districts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to
the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the Districts shall impose
a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ Boundaries and any
properties thereafter included in the Boundaries under the following terms:
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy
of five (5) mills as part of the Districts’ initial TABOR election. The Districts shall also seek from
the electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the City obligating the Districts to pay as a multiple-fiscal year obligation the
proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining such voter-approval of this
intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the Districts issuing any Debt and
imposing the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy and Fees for the repayment of 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 make a good faith effort to 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.
18
E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues.
Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be
expended as follows:
1. Intergovernmental Agreement
If the City and the Districts have executed an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be
used in accordance with such agreement;
2. No Intergovernmental Agreement
If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the Districts and the City,
then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the City in the
planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating, redeveloping or financing of
Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users of the Districts as prioritized and determined
by the City.
F. Regional Mill Levy Term.
The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five
(25) years from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first
imposed.
G. Completion of Regional Improvements.
All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five
(25) year Regional Mill Levy term.
H. City Authority to Require Imposition.
The City’s authority to require 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 January 1,
2019, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy may
be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be
determined by each of the Districts’ Boards in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual
tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor
19
diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2019. For purposes of the
foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the
method of calculating assessed valuation.
XI. CITY FEES
The Districts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code.
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS
All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those
pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and
Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve
this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be
set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii)
are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or governmental
powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are
also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy
law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section
943(b)(6).
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS 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. The Districts may file a consolidated annual report. The
annual report(s) may be made available to the public on the City’s website.
B. Board Meetings.
Each of the Districts’ Boards shall hold at least one public board meeting in three
of the four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after a District’s
creation. This meeting requirement shall not apply until there is at least one End User of property
within the District. Also, this requirement shall no longer apply when a majority of the directors
on the District’s Board are End Users. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in
accordance with the requirements of the Special District Act and other applicable State Law.
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.
20
2. Financial Statements
Except when an exemption from audit has been granted for the report year
under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for the
report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as of December 31 of
the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and expenditures) for the report year.
3. Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a
summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements in
the report year.
4. Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a
summary of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the amount
of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued in the report year, the
total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the Service Area as of January 1 of the
report year and the current total District mill levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5. Board Contact Information
The names and contact information of the current directors on the District’s
Board, any District manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the report. The
District’s current office address, phone number, email address and any website address shall also
be listed in the report.
6. Other Information
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.
21
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
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 and any agreement approved by the
City Council pursuant to the Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Any action of one or more of the
Districts, which is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan
Amendment as provided in in Section XV of this Service Plan or that does not comply with any
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:
22
A. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to
the taxpayers of the Districts;
B. 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;
C. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a
facility required by the Service Plan; and
D. Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this
Service Plan.
XVI. DISSOLUTION
Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which 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.
In addition, if within three (3) years from the date of the City Council’s approval of this
Service Plan no agreement contemplated under Section IV.B of this Service Plan has been entered
into by the City with any of the Districts and/or any Developer, despite the parties conducting good
faith negotiations attempting to do so, the City may opt to pursue the remedies available to it under
C.R.S. Section 32-1-701(3) in order to compel the Districts to dissolve in a prompt and orderly
manner. In such event: (i) the limited purposes and powers of the Districts, as authorized herein,
shall automatically terminate and be expressly limited to taking only those actions that are
reasonably necessary to dissolve; (ii) the Board of each of the Districts will be deemed to have
agreed with the City regarding its dissolution without an election pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-
704(3)(b); (iii) the Districts shall take no action to contest or impede the dissolution of the Districts
and shall affirmatively and diligently cooperate in securing the final dissolution of the Districts,
and (iv) subject to the statutory requirements of the Special District Act, the Districts shall
thereupon dissolve.
XVII. SANCTIONS
Should any of the Districts undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council approval
or consent or City Manager approval or consent as required in this Service Plan, that constitutes a
material modification to this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein
or under the Special Districts Act, or that does not otherwise comply with the provisions of this
Service Plan, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems
appropriate:
A. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act;
23
B. 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;
C. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the District is in default; or
D. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with
the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law.
XVIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY
Each of the Districts and the City shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement, the form
of which shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit L and incorporated by
reference (the “IGA”). However, the City and the Districts may include such additional details,
terms and conditions as they deem necessary in connection with the Project and the construction
and funding of the Public Improvements and the Public Benefits. Each of the Districts’ Boards
shall approve the IGA at their first board meeting, unless agreed otherwise by the City Manager.
Entering into this IGA is a precondition to each the Districts issuing any Debt or imposing any
Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy or Fee for the payment of Debt under this Service Plan. In
addition, failure of any of the Districts to enter into the IGA as required herein shall constitute a
material modification of this Service Plan and subject to the sanctions in Article XVII of this
Service Plan. The City and the Districts may amend the IGA from time-to-time provided such
amendment is not in conflict with any provision of this Service Plan.
XIX. CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes
that:
A. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service
Area to be served by the Districts;
B. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts is inadequate
for present and projected needs;
C. The Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the
Service Area; and
D. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Districts agree to incorporate the City Council’s resolution approving this Service
Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented
to the District Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado.
A-1-1
EXHIBIT A-1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 1 BOUNDARIES
Prepared for:Project#:Field Date
Proj. Manager
R e v i s i o n s#Date
Party Chief
Survey Tech
532 West 66th Street
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Office 970.669.2100 - Info@plscorporation.com
PLS Corporation
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date
of the certification shown hereon.
16057.012-D1
Highland Development Services, Inc.
N/A
N/A
MDG
MBS
see sheet 2 for exhibit
sheet 1 of 2
A portion of the Southeast 14 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado:
Considering the East line of the Southeast 14 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., as
bearing N 00°16'34" E, and with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto.
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.;
thence N 00°16'34" E for a distance of 1067.36 feet along the East line of the Southeast 14 of said Section 1;
thence N 89°43'26" W for a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of North Lemay Avenue;
thence N 85°25'31" W for a distance of 1687.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING - D1;
thence N 89°11'25" W for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence N 00°48'35" E for a distance of 9.00 feet;
thence S 89°11'25" E for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence S 00°48'35" W for a distance of 9.00 feet to the Point of Beginning - D1.
Containing 171 sq. ft. more or less.
Written by M. Bryan Short, Colorado PLS 32444
N 85°25'31" W 168
7
.
5
9
'
POINT OF
BEGINNING - D1
S 89°11'25" E
19.00'N 00°48'35" E
9.00'
N 89°11'25" W
19.00'
S 00°48'35" W
9.00'
District 1
±171 sq. ft.
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT,
Southeast Corner of Section 1,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West
N
0
0
°
1
6
'
3
4
"
E
1
0
6
7
.
3
6
'
ba
s
i
s
o
f
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
Ea
s
t
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
14 o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
50.00'
N 89°43'26" W
We
s
t
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
l
i
n
e
No
r
t
h
L
e
m
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
No
r
t
h
L
e
m
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
East 14 Corner of Section 1,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West
Prepared for:Project#:Field Date
Proj. Manager
R e v i s i o n s#Date
Party Chief
Survey Tech
532 West 66th Street
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Office 970.669.2100 - Info@plscorporation.com
PLS Corporation
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date
of the certification shown hereon.
16057.012-D1
Highland Development Services, Inc.
N/A
N/A
MDG
MBS
Scale 1 inch = 50 feet
0 100502550
see sheet 1 for description
sheet 2 of 2
A-2-1
EXHIBIT A-2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARIES
P:\Project\2016\16057\dwg\16057d012_D2.dwg May 03, 2019 - 9:21am
Office 970.669.2100 - Info@plscorporation.com
PLS Corporation
Loveland, Colorado 80538
532 West 66th Street
R e v i s i o n sDate#
Party Chief
Survey Tech
Proj. Manager
Field Date Prepared for:Project#:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date
of the certification shown hereon.
Description Exhibit
MBS
MDG
N/A
N/A
Highland Development Services, Inc.
16057.012-D2
see sheet 2 for exhibit
sheet 1 of 2
A portion of the Southeast 14 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado:
Considering the East line of the Southeast 14 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., as
bearing N 00°16'34" E, and with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto.
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.;
thence N 00°16'34" E for a distance of 1067.36 feet along the East line of the Southeast 14 of said Section 1;
thence N 89°43'26" W for a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of North Lemay Avenue to
the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also being "Point A";
thence N 89°43'26" W for a distance of 1543.20 feet to a point of a tangent curve, concave to the North, having a radius
of 8500.00 feet, a chord bearing of N 87°56'46" W and a chord length of 527.39 feet;
thence Westerly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 527.47 feet through a central angle of 3°33'20" to a point
of tangency;
thence N 86°10'06" W for a distance of 60.78 feet to the approximate centerline of Lake Canal Ditch;
thence N 47°26'34" E for a distance of 1872.56 feet along said ditch centerline;
thence S 41°24'11" E for a distance of 160.98 feet to a point of a non-tangent curve, concave to the Southeast, having a
radius of 640.73 feet, a chord bearing N 65°12'14" E and a chord length of 334.72 feet;
thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 338.65 feet, through a central angle of 30°16'59" to a
point of non-tangency;
thence N 80°24'34" E for a distance of 111.00 feet to a point of a non-tangent curve, concave to the South, having a
radius of 766.41 feet, a chord bearing N 85°20'34" E and a chord length of 131.82 feet;
thence Easterly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 131.98 feet, through a central angle of 9°52'01" to a point
of tangency;
thence S 89°43'26" E for a distance of 106.87 feet to a point on the aforesaid Westerly right-of-way line of North Lemay
Avenue;
thence S 00°16'34" W for a distance of 1345.19 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPT that portion described as follows;
COMMENCING at the aforesaid "Point A";
thence N 85°25'31" W for a distance of 1687.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING - D1;
thence N 89°11'25" W for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence N 00°48'35" E for a distance of 9.00 feet;
thence S 89°11'25" E for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence S 00°48'35" W for a distance of 9.00 feet to the Point of Beginning - D1.
ALSO EXCEPT that potion described as follows;
COMMENCING at the aforesaid "Point A";
thence N 84°48'57" W for a distance of 1688.87 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING - D3;
thence N 89°11'25" W for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence N 00°48'35" E for a distance of 9.00 feet;
thence S 89°11'25" E for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence S 00°48'35" W for a distance of 9.00 feet to the Point of Beginning - D3.
Containing 43.074 acres more or less.
Written by M. Bryan Short, Colorado PLS 32444
N 89°43'26" W
50.00'
POINT OF BEGINNING - D2
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
"Point A"N 85°25'31" W 168
7
.
5
9
'
N 84°48'57" W 1
6
8
8
.
8
7
'
N 47
°
2
6
'
3
4
"
E
1
8
7
2
.
5
6
'
L
2
C2
L3 C3 L4
S
0
0
°
1
6
'
3
4
"
W
1
3
4
5
.
1
9
'
N 89°43'26" W 1543.20'C1L1
We
s
t
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
l
i
n
e
No
r
t
h
L
e
m
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
District 2
±43.074 acres
see Detail
this sheet
approximate centerline of
Lake Canal Ditch
No
r
t
h
L
e
m
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT,
Southeast Corner of Section 1,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West
10
6
7
.
3
6
'
N
0
°
1
6
'
3
4
"
E
ba
s
i
s
o
f
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
Ea
s
t
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
So
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
14 o
f
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
Line Table
Line #
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
Length
60.78'
160.98'
111.00'
106.87'
19.00'
9.00'
19.00'
9.00'
19.00'
9.00'
19.00'
9.00'
Bearing
N 86°10'06" W
S 41°24'11" E
N 80°24'34" E
S 89°43'26" E
N 89°11'25" W
N 00°48'35" E
S 89°11'25" E
S 00°48'35" W
N 89°11'25" W
N 00°48'35" E
S 89°11'25" E
S 00°48'35" W
Curve Table
Curve #
C1
C2
C3
Length
527.47'
338.65'
131.98'
Radius
8500.00'
640.73'
766.41'
Delta
3°33'20"
30°16'59"
9°52'01"
Chord Bearing
N 87°56'46" W
N 65°12'14" E
N 85°20'34" E
Chord Length
527.39'
334.72'
131.82'
N 84°48'57" W 1
6
8
8
.
8
7
'
N 85°25'31" W 168
7
.
5
9
'
L11
L1
0 L9 L1
2
L7L6
L5
L8
POINT OF
BEGINNING - D1
POINT OF
BEGINNING - D3
East 14 Corner of Section 1,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West
P:\Project\2016\16057\dwg\16057d012_D2.dwg May 03, 2019 - 9:21am
Office 970.669.2100 - Info@plscorporation.com
PLS Corporation
Loveland, Colorado 80538
532 West 66th Street
R e v i s i o n sDate#
Party Chief
Survey Tech
Proj. Manager
Field Date Prepared for:Project#:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date
of the certification shown hereon.
Description Exhibit
MBS
MDG
N/A
N/A
Highland Development Services, Inc.
16057.012-D2
Scale 1 inch = 200 feet
0 400200100200
Detail
1" = 50'
see sheet 1 for description
sheet 2 of 2
A-3-1
EXHIBIT A-3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT NO. 3 BOUNDARIES
P:\Project\2016\16057\dwg\16057d012_D3.dwg May 03, 2019 - 9:23am
Office 970.669.2100 - Info@plscorporation.com
PLS Corporation
Loveland, Colorado 80538
532 West 66th Street
R e v i s i o n sDate#
Party Chief
Survey Tech
Proj. Manager
Field Date Prepared for:Project#:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date
of the certification shown hereon.
Description Exhibit
MBS
MDG
N/A
N/A
Highland Development Services, Inc.
16057.012-D3
A portion of the Southeast 14 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado:
Considering the East line of the Southeast 14 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., as
bearing N 00°16'34" E, and with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto.
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.;
thence N 00°16'34" E for a distance of 1067.36 feet along the East line of the Southeast 14 of said Section 1;
thence N 89°43'26" W for a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of North Lemay Avenue to
the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also being "Point A";
thence N 89°43'26" W for a distance of 1543.20 feet to a point of a tangent curve, concave to the North, having a radius
of 8500.00 feet, a chord bearing of N 87°56'46" W and a chord length of 527.39 feet;
thence Westerly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 527.47 feet, through a central angle of 3°33'20" to a point
of tangency;
thence N 86°10'06" W for a distance of 60.78 feet to the approximate centerline of Lake Canal Ditch;
thence S 47°26'34" W for a distance of 129.78 feet along said ditch centerline;
thence S 43°44'54" W for a distance of 174.33 feet along said ditch centerline;
thence S 30°52'19" W for a distance of 74.72 feet along said ditch centerline;
thence S 89°46'46" E for a distance of 1478.15 feet to the West line of the ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION, public records
County of Larimer, State of Colorado;
thence N 00°22'54" E for a distance of 100.00 feet along said West line to the North line of said ALTA VISTA
SUBDIVISION;
thence S 89°37'06" E for a distance of 625.00 feet along said North line to the East line of said ALTA VISTA
SUBDIVISION;
thence S 00°35'47" W for a distance of 100.26 feet along said East line;
thence S 89°40'17" E for a distance of 281.38 feet to a point on the aforesaid Westerly right-of-way line of North Lemay
Avenue;
thence N 00°16'34" E for a distance of 259.17 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line to the Point of Beginning.
AND that potion described as follows;
COMMENCING at the aforesaid "Point A";
thence N 84°48'57" W for a distance of 1688.87 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING - D3;
thence N 89°11'25" W for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence N 00°48'35" E for a distance of 9.00 feet;
thence S 89°11'25" E for a distance of 19.00 feet;
thence S 00°48'35" W for a distance of 9.00 feet to the Point of Beginning - D3.
Containing 12.185 acres more or less.
Written by M. Bryan Short, Colorado PLS 32444
see sheet 2 for exhibit
sheet 1 of 2
N 89°43'26" W
50.00'
POINT OF BEGINNING
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
"Point A"
see Detail
this sheet
N 89°43'26" W 1543.20'
R=8500.00' L=527.47'
=3°33'20"
Ch=527.39'
CB=N 87°56'46" W
N 86°10'06" W
60.78'S 47°26'34" W
129.78'
S 43°44'54" W
174.33'
S 30°52'19" W
74.72'
S 89°46'46" E 1478.15'
N 00°22'54" E
100.00'
S 89°37'06" E 625.00'
S 00°35'47" W
100.26'S 89°40'17" E
281.38'
N
0
0
°
1
6
'
3
4
"
E
25
9
.
1
7
'
No
r
t
h
L
e
m
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
N 84°48'57" W 1
6
8
8
.
8
7
'
District 3
±12.185 acres
approximate centerline of
Lake Canal Ditch
West right-of-way line
North Lemay Avenue
West line of
ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION
North line of
ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION East line of
ALTA VISTA
SUBDIVISION
ALTA VISTA
SUBDIVISION
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT,
Southeast Corner of Section 1,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West
N
0
0
°
1
6
'
3
4
"
E
1
0
6
7
.
3
6
'
ba
s
i
s
o
f
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
Ea
s
t
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
14 o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
East 14 Corner of Section 1,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West
N 84°48'57" W 1
6
8
8
.
8
7
'
POINT OF
BEGINNING - D3
S 89°11'25" E
19.00'
N 00°48'35" E
9.00'
N 89°11'25" W
19.00'
S 00°48'35" W
9.00'
P:\Project\2016\16057\dwg\16057d012_D3.dwg May 03, 2019 - 9:23am
Office 970.669.2100 - Info@plscorporation.com
PLS Corporation
Loveland, Colorado 80538
532 West 66th Street
R e v i s i o n sDate#
Party Chief
Survey Tech
Proj. Manager
Field Date Prepared for:Project#:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date
of the certification shown hereon.
Description Exhibit
MBS
MDG
N/A
N/A
Highland Development Services, Inc.
16057.012-D3
Detail
1" = 50'
Scale 1 inch = 200 feet
0 400200100200
see sheet 1 for description
sheet 2 of 2
B-1-1
EXHIBIT B-1
DISTRICT NO. 1 BOUNDARY MAP
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
N
W E
S
LEGEND
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
DISTRICT 1
171 SQ. FT.
0.004 AC.
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
1
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
A
P
04/26/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
B-1
1 3
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
DISTRICT 1 ENLARGEMENT
SCALE: 1" = 100'
B-2-1
EXHIBIT B-2
DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARY MAP
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
DISTRICT 2
1,876,098 SQ. FT.
43.07 AC.
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
N
W E
S
LEGEND
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
2
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
A
P
04/26/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
B-2
2 3
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
B-3-1
EXHIBIT B-3
DISTRICT NO. 3 BOUNDARY MAP
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
DISTRICT 3
531,283 SQ. FT.
12.20 AC.
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
N
W E
S
LEGEND
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
3
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
A
P
04/26/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
B-3
3 3
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
DISTRICT 3
171 SQ. FT.
0.004 AC.
DISTRICT 3 ENLARGEMENT
SCALE: 1" = 100'
C-1
EXHIBIT C
VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED NORTHFIELD
METRO DISTRICT
N
W E
S
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
5
5
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
04/30/2019
1" = 1000'
KRB
18-1000-00
EXHIBIT C
1 1
0
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
1000500
D-1
EXHIBIT D
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
Summary Estimate of Preliminary District Expenditures
Design Engineer: K. Brigman
Design Firm: Highland Development Services
Project Number: 18-1000-00
Date: May 2, 2019
No.Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1
1 LS 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$
Clearing, Grubbing, and Topsoil Stripping 56 AC 12,000.00$ 672,000.00$
250,000 CY 6.00$ 1,500,000.00$
Import Fill Dirt 200,000 CY 15.00$ $ 3,000,000.00
1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
6,697,000.00$
2
275 SY 70.00$ 19,250.00$
Private Drive (24' Section)LF 205.00$ -$
LF 225.00$ -$
4,264 LF 430.00$ 1,833,520.00$
Connector Local Street with Median (65' Section)450 LF 550.00$ 247,500.00$
2,160 LF 346.00$ 747,360.00$
On-Site Suniga Rd 4-lane Arterial Upsizing (83' Section)LF 779.00$ -$
LF 715.00$ -$
1 LS 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$
Signage and Striping 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
3,122,630.00$
3
2,260 LF 50.00$ 113,000.00$
8" Waterline 7,760 LF 65.00$ 504,400.00$
-LF 85.00$ -
-LF 100.00$ -
-LF 2,000.00$ -
-LS -$ -
617,400.00$
4
6,356 LF 90.00$ 572,040.00$
1,484 LF 100.00$ 148,400.00$
12" Sanitary Sewer -LF 112.00$ -
8" Subdrain -LF 75.00$ -
Existing 15" to 18" Sanitary Sewer Upsize LF 150.00$ -$
LF 180.00$ -$
148,400.00$
5
7,890 LF 190.00$ 1,499,100.00$
Outlet/Control Structure 9 EA 10,000.00$ 90,000.00$
LID Infiltration Galleries 3 EA 100,000.00$ 300,000.00$
1,889,100.00$
6
AC -$
Landscaped Open Space 8.5 AC 110,000.00$ 935,000.00$
Grading/Miscellaneous
Mobilization / General Conditions
BASIC PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT NOS. 1-3
The units and cost below are best assumptions based on the level of information available at this time in design. Street section in reference to LCUASS
Connector Local street section, and pavement section in reference to geotech report
Public Improvements
Description
Connector Local Street (36' Section)
Off-Site Suniga Rd 4-lane Arterial (83' Section)
Street Lighting
Parking Lots
Private Drive (26' Section)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Potable Waterline Improvements
6" Waterline
Earthwork (cut/fill/place)
Erosion Control / Traffic Control
Roadway Improvements
10" Waterline
On-Site Suniga Rd 2-lane Connector w/ Median (65' Section)
Storm Drainage Improvements
12" Waterline
Utility Borings
Raw Water Requirements
Subtotal
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
8" Sanitary Sewer
Natural Area Open Space
Open Space, Parks, and Trails
RCP Storm Sewer
Subtotal
10" Sanitary Sewer
Existing 18" to 24" Sanitary Sewer Upsize
Subtotal
SF 15.00$ -$
1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
LS 125,000.00$ -
Clubhouse/Pool LS 2,000,000.00$ -$
1,010,000.00$
7
1 LS 1,349,000.00$ 1,349,000.00$
Construction Management / Inspection / Testing 1 LS 2,023,000.00$ 2,023,000.00$
1 LS 405,000.00$ 405,000.00$
3,777,000.00$
17,261,530.00$
Contingency (20%) 3,452,310.00$
Total Cost 20,713,840.00$
Infrastructure Subtotal
Subtotal
Alta Vista Subdivision Buffer Area
Monument Signs
Regional Trails
Engineering / Surveying
Admin. / Planning / Permitting
Subtotal
Admin. / Design / Permitting / Etc.
Summary Estimate of Preliminary District Expenditures
Design Engineer: K. Brigman
Design Firm: Highland Development Services
Project Number: 18-1000-00
Date: May 2, 2019
No.Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1
LS 1,500,000.00$ -$
Clearing, Grubbing, and Topsoil Stripping AC 12,000.00$ -$
CY 6.00$ -$
Import Fill CY 15.00$ -$
LS 25,000.00$ -$
-$
2
SY 70.00$ -$
Private Drive (24' Section)3,960 LF 112.00$ 443,520.00$
2,880 LF 131.00$ 377,280.00$
LF 430.00$ -$
Connector Local Street with Median (65' Section)LF 550.00$ -$
LF 346.00$ -$
On-Site Suniga Rd 4-lane Arterial Upsizing (83' Section)2,160 LF 779.00$ 1,682,640.00$
520 LF 1,490.00$ 774,800.00$
LS 250,000.00$ -$
Signage and Striping LS 25,000.00$ -$
3,278,240.00$
3
LF 50.00$ -$
8" Waterline LF 65.00$ -$
-LF 85.00$ -
-LF 100.00$ -
-LF 2,000.00$ -
-LS -$ -
-$
4
LF 90.00$ -$
LF 100.00$ -$
12" Sanitary Sewer -LF 112.00$ -
8" Subdrain -LF 75.00$ -
Existing 15" to 18" Sanitary Sewer Upsize 565 LF 176.00$ 99,440.00$
2,130 LF 206.00$ 438,780.00$
-LS -
538,220.00$
5
LF 190.00$ -$
Outlet/Control Structure EA 10,000.00$ -$
LID Infiltration Galleries EA 100,000.00$ -$
-$
6
Subtotal
Open Space, Parks, and Trails
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
8" Sanitary Sewer
10" Sanitary Sewer
Existing 18" to 24" Sanitary Sewer Upsize
Storm Drainage Improvements
RCP Storm Sewer
Subtotal
6" Waterline
10" Waterline
12" Waterline
Utility Borings
Raw Water Requirements
Subtotal
Potable Waterline Improvements
Mobilization / General Conditions
Earthwork (cut/fill/place)
Erosion Control / Traffic Control
Subtotal
Roadway Improvements
Parking Lots
Private Drive (26' Section)
Connector Local Street (36' Section)
Off-Site Suniga Rd 4-lane Arterial (83' Section)
Street Lighting
Subtotal
Grading/Miscellaneous
On-Site Suniga Rd 2-lane Connector w/ Median (65' Section)
NON-BASIC PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT NOS. 1-3
The units and cost below are best assumptions based on the level of information available at this time in design. Street section in reference to LCUASS
Connector Local street section, and pavement section in reference to geotech report
Public Improvements
Description
-AC -$
Landscaped Open Space 6.6 AC 110,000.00$ 723,800.00$
13,270 SF 15.00$ 199,050.00$
LS 75,000.00$ -$
1 LS 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$
1 LS 2,000,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$
3,047,850.00$
7
1 LS 687,000.00$ 687,000.00$
Construction Management / Inspection / Testing 1 LS 1,030,000.00$ 1,030,000.00$
1 LS 206,000.00$ 206,000.00$
1,923,000.00$
8,787,310.00$
Contingency (20%) 1,757,465.00$
Total Cost 10,544,775.00$
Natural Area Open Space
Subtotal
Infrastructure Subtotal
Monument Signs
Alta Vista Subdivision Buffer Area
Subtotal
Admin. / Design / Permitting / Etc.
Engineering / Surveying
Admin. / Planning / Permitting
Clubhouse/Pool
Regional Trails
E-1
EXHIBIT E
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT MAPS
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
LEGEND
COLLECTOR LOCAL STREETS
(57' WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
4-LANE ARTERIAL
(115' WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)
COLLECTOR LOCAL STREET WITH MEDIAN
(86' WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)
N
W E
S HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
ST
R
E
E
T
S
M
A
P
04/29/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
E-1
1 5
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
PRIVATE DRIVES (26' WIDE SECTION)
PRIVATE DRIVES (24' WIDE SECTION)
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
LEGEND
WATER LINE - 8" PVC
ALL WATER OWNED AND MAINTAINED
BY FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
N
W E
S HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
PO
T
A
B
L
E
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
P
04/30/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
E-2
2 5
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300EXISTING WATER LINE (SIZE AS LABELED)
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
LEGEND
SEWER LINE - 8" PVC
ALL SEWER OWNED AND MAINTAINED
BY FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
EXISTING SEWER LINE (SIZE AS LABELED)
SEWER LINE - 10" PVC
ALL SEWER OWNED AND MAINTAINED
BY FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
N
W E
S HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
M
A
P
04/30/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
E-3
3 5
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
LEGEND
RCP STORM DRAIN LINE (SIZES TO BE
DETERMINED AT FINAL DESIGN)
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
DETENTION AREAS
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) AREAS
N
W E
S HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
M
A
P
04/30/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
E-4
4 5
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
LAK
E
C
A
N
A
L
N.
L
E
M
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
E. SUNIGA ROAD
LEGEND
CONNECTIVITY LANDSCAPING WITH TRAILS
NORTHFIELD METRO DISTRICT BOUNDARY
STREETS WITH TREE LAWN AREAS
LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE
N
W E
S HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
63
4
1
F
A
I
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
|
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
,
C
O
8
0
5
5
0
PH
O
N
E
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
5
0
|
F
A
X
:
9
7
0
.
6
7
4
.
7
5
6
8
|
w
w
w
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
-
D
S
.
c
o
m
DRAWN BY
DATE
SCALE (H)
HDS PROJ #
OFSHEET
NO
R
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
OP
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
,
P
A
R
K
S
,
&
T
R
A
I
L
S
M
A
P
04/30/2019
1" = 300'
KRB
18-1000-00
E-5
5 5
SCALE 1" =
0150
300'
300
F-1
EXHIBIT F
FINANCIAL PLAN
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
1 Development Projection at 40.000 (target) Mills for Debt Service -- Service Plan
2050 Series 2030, G.O. Bonds, Pay & Cancel Refg of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money, Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
2049
0
< < < < < < < < Residential > > > > > > > > < Platted/Developed Lots > < < < < < < < < < < Commercial > > > > > > > > > >
Mkt Value As'ed Value As'ed Value Mkt Value As'ed Value District District District
Biennial @ 7.20%@ 29.00%Biennial @ 29.00%Total D/S Mill Levy D/S Mill Levy S.O. Taxes Total
Total Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Cumulative of Market Total Comm'l Reasses'mt Cumulative of Market Assessed [40.000 Target] Collections Collected Available
YEAR Res'l Units @ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag) Market Value (2-yr lag) Sq. Ft.@ 6.0% Market Value (2-yr lag)Value [40.000 Cap] @ 98%@ 6%Revenue
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 1,070,551 0 0 0
2020 34 0 10,705,512 0 4,858,199 0 0 0 0 0 $0 40.000 0 0 0
2021 145 60,259,140 0 4,032,990 310,460 0 0 0 310,460 40.000 12,170 730 12,900
2022 115 3,615,548 105,206,784 770,797 3,277,464 1,408,878 2,679 0 627,127 0 2,179,675 40.000 85,443 5,127 90,570
2023 88 139,987,494 4,338,658 1,965,346 1,169,567 0 627,127 0 5,508,225 40.000 215,922 12,955 228,878
2024 54 8,399,250 169,660,283 7,574,888 215,424 950,465 0 37,628 664,755 181,867 8,707,220 40.000 341,323 20,479 361,802
2025 6 172,038,738 10,079,100 0 569,950 0 664,755 181,867 10,830,917 40.000 424,572 25,474 450,046
2026 0 10,322,324 182,361,062 12,215,540 0 62,473 0 39,885 704,640 192,779 12,470,792 40.000 488,855 29,331 518,186
2027 0 182,361,062 12,386,789 0 0 0 704,640 192,779 12,579,568 40.000 493,119 29,587 522,706
2028 0 10,941,664 193,302,726 13,129,996 0 0 0 42,278 746,918 204,346 13,334,342 40.000 522,706 31,362 554,069
2029 0 193,302,726 13,129,996 0 0 0 746,918 204,346 13,334,342 40.000 522,706 31,362 554,069
2030 0 11,598,164 204,900,890 13,917,796 0 0 0 44,815 791,734 216,606 14,134,403 40.000 554,069 33,244 587,313
2031 0 204,900,890 13,917,796 0 0 0 791,734 216,606 14,134,403 40.000 554,069 33,244 587,313
2032 0 12,294,053 217,194,943 14,752,864 0 0 0 47,504 839,238 229,603 14,982,467 40.000 587,313 35,239 622,551
2033 0 217,194,943 14,752,864 0 0 0 839,238 229,603 14,982,467 40.000 587,313 35,239 622,551
2034 0 13,031,697 230,226,639 15,638,036 0 0 0 50,354 889,592 243,379 15,881,415 40.000 622,551 37,353 659,905
2035 0 230,226,639 15,638,036 0 0 0 889,592 243,379 15,881,415 40.000 622,551 37,353 659,905
2036 0 13,813,598 244,040,238 16,576,318 0 0 0 53,376 942,967 257,982 16,834,300 40.000 659,905 39,594 699,499
2037 0 244,040,238 16,576,318 0 0 0 942,967 257,982 16,834,300 40.000 659,905 39,594 699,499
2038 0 14,642,414 258,682,652 17,570,897 0 0 0 56,578 999,545 273,461 17,844,358 40.000 699,499 41,970 741,469
2039 258,682,652 17,570,897 0 0 999,545 273,461 17,844,358 40.000 699,499 41,970 741,469
2040 15,520,959 274,203,611 18,625,151 0 0 59,973 1,059,518 289,868 18,915,019 40.000 741,469 44,488 785,957
2041 274,203,611 18,625,151 0 0 1,059,518 289,868 18,915,019 40.000 741,469 44,488 785,957
2042 16,452,217 290,655,828 19,742,660 0 0 63,571 1,123,089 307,260 20,049,920 40.000 785,957 47,157 833,114
2043 290,655,828 19,742,660 0 0 1,123,089 307,260 20,049,920 40.000 785,957 47,157 833,114
2044 17,439,350 308,095,178 20,927,220 0 0 67,385 1,190,474 325,696 21,252,915 40.000 833,114 49,987 883,101
2045 308,095,178 20,927,220 0 0 1,190,474 325,696 21,252,915 40.000 833,114 49,987 883,101
2046 18,485,711 326,580,888 22,182,853 0 0 71,428 1,261,903 345,238 22,528,090 40.000 883,101 52,986 936,087
2047 326,580,888 22,182,853 0 0 1,261,903 345,238 22,528,090 40.000 883,101 52,986 936,087
2048 19,594,853 346,175,742 23,513,824 0 0 75,714 1,337,617 365,952 23,879,776 40.000 936,087 56,165 992,252
2049 346,175,742 23,513,824 0 0 1,337,617 365,952 23,879,776 40.000 936,087 56,165 992,252
2050 20,770,544 366,946,286 24,924,653 0 0 80,257 1,417,874 387,909 25,312,562 40.000 992,252 59,535 1,051,788
2051 366,946,286 24,924,653 0 0 1,417,874 387,909 25,312,562 40.000 992,252 59,535 1,051,788
2052 22,016,777 388,963,063 26,420,133 0 0 85,072 1,502,947 411,184 26,831,316 40.000 1,051,788 63,107 1,114,895
2053 388,963,063 26,420,133 0 0 1,502,947 411,184 26,831,316 40.000 1,051,788 63,107 1,114,895
2054 23,337,784 412,300,847 28,005,341 0 0 90,177 1,593,123 435,855 28,441,195 40.000 1,114,895 66,894 1,181,789
2055 412,300,847 28,005,341 0 0 1,593,123 435,855 28,441,195 40.000 1,114,895 66,894 1,181,789
2056 24,738,051 437,038,898 29,685,661 0 0 95,587 1,688,711 462,006 30,147,667 40.000 1,181,789 70,907 1,252,696
2057 437,038,898 29,685,661 0 0 1,688,711 462,006 30,147,667 40.000 1,181,789 70,907 1,252,696
2058 26,222,334 463,261,232 31,466,801 0 0 101,323 1,790,033 489,726 31,956,527 40.000 1,252,696 75,162 1,327,858
2059 463,261,232 31,466,801 0 0 1,790,033 489,726 31,956,527 40.000 1,252,696 75,162 1,327,858
2060 27,795,674 491,056,906 33,354,809 0 0 107,402 1,897,435 519,110 33,873,918 40.000 1,327,858 79,671 1,407,529
______ ____________________ ____________________ __________ __________
442 331,032,966 2,679 1,270,308 30,227,642 1,813,659 32,041,301
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 NR SP Fin Plan+2030 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
1
1
2050
2049
0
YEAR
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
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Projection at 40.000 (target) Mills for Debt Service -- Service Plan
Series 2030, G.O. Bonds, Pay & Cancel Refg of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money, Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
Series 2020 Ser. 2030
$10,020,000 Par $14,870,000 Par Surplus Senior Senior Cov. of Net DS: Cov. of Net DS:
[Net $7.098 MM] [Net $5.829 MM]Total Annual Release Cumulative Debt/Debt/ @ 40.000 Target @ 40.000 Cap
Net Available Net Debt [Escr $9.790 MM] Net Debt Funds on Hand* Surplus 50% D/A Surplus Assessed Act'l Value & 0.0 U.R.A. Mills & 0.0 U.R.A. Mills
for Debt Svc Service Net Debt Service Service Used as Source to $1,487,000 $1,487,000 Target Ratio Ratio & Sales PIF Revs & Sales PIF Revs
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 $0 0 0 0 3227% 16% 0.0% 0.0%
12,900 0 0 12,900 0 12,900 460% 9% 0.0% 0.0%
90,570 0 0 90,570 0 103,470 182% 7% 0.0% 0.0%
228,878 0 0 228,878 0 332,348 115% 6% 0.0% 0.0%
361,802 501,000 501,000 (139,198) 0 193,150 93% 6% 72.2% 72.2%
450,046 501,000 501,000 (50,954) 0 142,196 80% 5% 89.8% 89.8%
518,186 516,000 516,000 2,186 0 144,383 80% 5% 100.4% 100.4%
522,706 520,250 520,250 2,456 0 146,839 75% 5% 100.5% 100.5%
554,069 549,250 549,250 4,819 0 151,658 75% 5% 100.9% 100.9%
554,069 551,750 551,750 2,319 0 153,976 70% 5% 100.4% 100.4%
587,313 584,000 $0 584,000 155,000 (151,687) 0 2,289 105% 7% 100.6% 100.6%
587,313 [Ref'd by ser. '30]545,233 545,233 42,079 0 44,368 99%7%107.7%107.7%
622,551 619,800 619,800 2,751 0 47,120 99%7%100.4%100.4%
622,551 618,800 618,800 3,751 0 50,871 93%6%100.6%100.6%
659,905 657,800 657,800 2,105 0 52,976 93%6%100.3%100.3%
659,905 655,200 655,200 4,705 0 57,680 87%6%100.7%100.7%
699,499 697,600 697,600 1,899 0 59,579 87%6%100.3%100.3%
699,499 698,200 698,200 1,299 0 60,878 81%6%100.2%100.2%
741,469 738,600 738,600 2,869 0 63,747 80%6%100.4%100.4%
741,469 737,200 737,200 4,269 0 68,015 75%5%100.6%100.6%
785,957 785,600 785,600 357 0 68,372 74%5%100.0%100.0%
785,957 781,800 781,800 4,157 0 72,529 68%5%100.5%100.5%
833,114 832,800 832,800 314 0 72,843 67%5%100.0%100.0%
833,114 831,400 831,400 1,714 0 74,558 62%4%100.2%100.2%
883,101 879,600 879,600 3,501 0 78,059 60%4%100.4%100.4%
883,101 880,400 880,400 2,701 0 80,760 55%4%100.3%100.3%
936,087 935,600 935,600 487 0 81,247 53%4%100.1%100.1%
936,087 933,000 933,000 3,087 0 84,334 48%3%100.3%100.3%
992,252 989,800 989,800 2,452 0 86,787 46%3%100.2%100.2%
992,252 988,600 988,600 3,652 0 90,439 41%3%100.4%100.4%
1,051,788 1,046,600 1,046,600 5,188 0 95,627 39%3%100.5%100.5%
1,051,788 1,051,400 1,051,400 388 0 96,015 34%2%100.0%100.0%
1,114,895 1,110,000 1,110,000 4,895 0 100,909 31%2%100.4%100.4%
1,114,895 1,110,200 1,110,200 4,695 0 105,604 27%2%100.4%100.4%
1,181,789 1,179,200 1,179,200 2,589 0 108,193 24%2%100.2%100.2%
1,181,789 1,179,200 1,179,200 2,589 0 110,781 19%1%100.2%100.2%
1,252,696 1,247,800 1,247,800 4,896 0 115,677 16%1%100.4%100.4%
1,252,696 1,252,200 1,252,200 496 0 116,173 12%1%100.0%100.0%
1,327,858 1,324,800 1,324,800 3,058 0 119,231 8%1%100.2%100.2%
1,327,858 1,322,800 1,322,800 5,058 0 124,288 4%0%100.4%100.4%
1,407,529 1,404,000 1,404,000 3,529 127,817 0 0%0%100.3%100.3%
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
32,041,301 3,723,250 28,035,233 31,758,483 155,000 127,817 127,817
[CApr2519 20nrspC] [CApr2519 30igspC]
[*] Estimated balance (tbd).
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 NR SP Fin Plan+2030 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
2
1
2050
2049
0
YEAR
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
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Operations Revenue and Expense Projection
Total Total S.O. Tax Total
Assessed Oper'ns Collections Collections Available Total
Value Mill Levy @ 98%@ 98%For O&M Mills
0 10.000 0 0 0 50.000
310,460 10.000 3,043 2,982 6,024 50.000
2,179,675 10.000 21,361 20,934 42,294 50.000
5,508,225 10.000 53,981 52,901 106,882 50.000
8,707,220 10.000 85,331 83,624 168,955 50.000
10,830,917 10.000 106,143 104,020 210,163 50.000
12,470,792 10.000 122,214 119,769 241,983 50.000
12,579,568 10.000 123,280 120,814 244,094 50.000
13,334,342 10.000 130,677 128,063 258,740 50.000
13,334,342 10.000 130,677 128,063 258,740 50.000
14,134,403 10.000 138,517 135,747 274,264 50.000
14,134,403 10.000 138,517 135,747 274,264 50.000
14,982,467 10.000 146,828 143,892 290,720 50.000
14,982,467 10.000 146,828 143,892 290,720 50.000
15,881,415 10.000 155,638 152,525 308,163 50.000
15,881,415 10.000 155,638 152,525 308,163 50.000
16,834,300 10.000 164,976 161,677 326,653 50.000
16,834,300 10.000 164,976 161,677 326,653 50.000
17,844,358 10.000 174,875 171,377 346,252 50.000
17,844,358 10.000 174,875 171,377 346,252 50.000
18,915,019 10.000 185,367 181,660 367,027 50.000
18,915,019 10.000 185,367 181,660 367,027 50.000
20,049,920 10.000 196,489 192,559 389,049 50.000
20,049,920 10.000 196,489 192,559 389,049 50.000
21,252,915 10.000 208,279 204,113 412,392 50.000
21,252,915 10.000 208,279 204,113 412,392 50.000
22,528,090 10.000 220,775 216,360 437,135 50.000
22,528,090 10.000 220,775 216,360 437,135 50.000
23,879,776 10.000 234,022 229,341 463,363 50.000
23,879,776 10.000 234,022 229,341 463,363 50.000
25,312,562 10.000 248,063 243,102 491,165 50.000
25,312,562 10.000 248,063 243,102 491,165 50.000
26,831,316 10.000 262,947 257,688 520,635 50.000
26,831,316 10.000 262,947 257,688 520,635 50.000
28,441,195 10.000 278,724 273,149 551,873 50.000
28,441,195 10.000 278,724 273,149 551,873 50.000
30,147,667 10.000 295,447 289,538 584,985 50.000
30,147,667 10.000 295,447 289,538 584,985 50.000
31,956,527 10.000 313,174 306,910 620,084 50.000
31,956,527 10.000 313,174 306,910 620,084 50.000
33,873,918 10.000 331,964 325,325 657,290 50.000
_______ _______________
7,556,911 7,405,772 14,962,683
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 NR SP Fin Plan+2030 IG Refg Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co.
Draft: For discussion purposes only.
3
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Summary
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 4/25/19)
Residential Development Commercial Development
Product Type
Stacked Condos Flats Brownstones Value Condo
Deed Restricted
Condo
MU - Studio Apts
(For Rent)MU - Retail
Base $ ('20) $306,714 $359,040 $388,518 $316,200 $265,200 $200,000 $225/sf
Res'l Totals Comm'l Totals
2018 - - - - - - - - -
2019 - - - - - - - - -
2020 12 - 8 4 10 - 34 - -
2021 28 36 42 8 31 - 145 - -
2022 - 45 40 4 24 2 115 2,679 2,679
2023 - 48 40 - - - 88 - -
2024 - 45 9 - - - 54 - -
2025 - 6 - - - - 6 - -
2026 - - - - - - - - -
2027 - - - - - - - - -
2028 - - - - - - - - -
2029 - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - -
40 180 139 16 65 2 442 2,679 2,679
MV @ Full Buildout $12,268,560 $64,627,200 $54,004,002 $5,059,200 $17,238,000 $400,000 $153,596,962 $602,775 $602,775
(base prices;un-infl.)
notes:
Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior
Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 Dev Summ Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
4
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
2050 Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 4/25/19)
100%
0 Ph
Residential Development
Stacked Condos Flats Brownstones Value Condo
Incr/(Decr) in Incr/(Decr) in Incr/(Decr) in Incr/(Decr) in
Finished Lot # Units Price Finished Lot # Units Price Finished Lot # Units Price Finished Lot # Units Price
# Lots Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market # Lots Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market # Lots Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market # Lots Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market
YEAR Devel'd 10% 40 target 2%Value Devel'd 10% 180 target 2%Value Devel'd 10% 139 target 2%Value Devel'd 10% 16 target 2%Value
2018 0 0 $306,714 0 0 0 $359,040 0 0 0 $388,518 0 0 0 $316,200 0
2019 12 368,057 306,714 0 0 0 359,040 0 8 310,814 388,518 0 4 126,480 316,200 0
2020 28 490,742 12 306,714 3,680,568 36 1,292,544 0 359,040 0 42 1,320,961 8 388,518 3,108,144 8 126,480 4 316,200 1,264,800
2021 0 (858,799) 28 312,848 8,759,752 45 323,136 36 366,221 13,183,949 40 (77,704) 42 396,288 16,644,111 4 (126,480)8 322,524 2,580,192
2022 0 0 0 319,105 0 48 107,712 45 373,545 16,809,535 40 0 40 404,214 16,168,565 0 (126,480)4 328,974 1,315,898
2023 0 0 0 325,487 0 45 (107,712) 48 381,016 18,288,774 9 (1,204,406) 40 412,298 16,491,936 0 0 0 335,554 0
2024 0 0 0 331,997 0 6 (1,400,256) 45 388,636 17,488,640 0 (349,666)9 420,544 3,784,899 0 0 0 342,265 0
2025 0 0 0 338,637 0 0 (215,424) 6 396,409 2,378,455 0 0 0 428,955 0 0 0 0 349,110 0
2026 0 0 0 345,410 0 0 0 0 404,337 0 0 0 0 437,534 0 0 0 0 356,093 0
2027 0 0 0 352,318 0 0 0 0 412,424 0 0 0 0 446,285 0 0 0 0 363,214 0
2028 0 0 0 359,364 0 0 0 0 420,673 0 0 0 0 455,211 0 0 0 0 370,479 0
2029 0 0 0 366,552 0 0 0 0 429,086 0 0 0 0 464,315 0 0 0 0 377,888 0
2030 0 0 0 373,883 0 0 0 0 437,668 0 0 0 0 473,601 0 0 0 0 385,446 0
2031 0 0 0 381,360 0 0 0 0 446,421 0 0 0 0 483,073 0 0 0 0 393,155 0
2032 0 0 0 388,988 0 0 0 0 455,350 0 0 0 0 492,735 0 0 0 0 401,018 0
2033 0 0 0 396,767 0 0 0 0 464,457 0 0 0 0 502,589 0 0 0 0 409,038 0
2034 0 0 0 404,703 0 0 0 0 473,746 0 0 0 0 512,641 0 0 0 0 417,219 0
2035 0 0 0 412,797 0 0 0 0 483,221 0 0 0 0 522,894 0 0 0 0 425,564 0
2036 0 0 0 421,053 0 0 0 0 492,885 0 0 0 0 533,352 0 0 0 0 434,075 0
2037 0 0 0 429,474 0 0 0 0 502,743 0 0 0 0 544,019 0 0 0 0 442,756 0
2038 0 0 438,063 0 0 0 512,798 0 0 0 554,899 0 0 0 451,611 0
______ _________ _______________ ______ _________ _______________ _____ _________ _______________ _____ _________ _______________
40 0 40 12,440,320 180 (0) 180 68,149,352 139 (0) 139 56,197,656 16 0 16 5,160,890
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 Abs
Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
5
2050
100%
0 Ph
YEAR
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 4/25/19)
Residential Summary
Deed Restricted Condo MU - Studio Apts (For Rent)
Incr/(Decr) in Incr/(Decr) in
Finished Lot # Units Price Finished Lot # Units Price Total
# Lots Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market # Lots Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market Residential Total Total Total Total
Devel'd 10%65 target 2%Value Devel'd 10% 2 target 2%Value Market Value SFD Units SFA Units MFD Units Res'l Units
0 0 $265,200 0 0 0 $200,000 0 $0 0 0 0 0
10 265,200 265,200 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 556,920 10 265,200 2,652,000 0 0 200,000 0 10,705,512 0 34 0 34
24 (185,640) 31 270,504 8,385,624 2 40,000 204,000 0 49,553,628 0 145 0 145
0 (636,480) 24 275,914 6,621,938 0 (40,000) 2 208,080 416,160 41,332,096 0 113 2 115
0 0 0 281,432 0 0 0 0 212,242 0 34,780,710 0 88 0 88
0 0 0 287,061 0 0 0 0 216,486 0 21,273,539 0 54 0 54
0 0 0 292,802 0 0 0 0 220,816 0 2,378,455 0 6 0 6
0 0 0 298,658 0 0 0 0 225,232 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 304,631 0 0 0 0 229,737 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 310,724 0 0 0 0 234,332 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 316,939 0 0 0 0 239,019 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 323,277 0 0 0 0 243,799 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 329,743 0 0 0 0 248,675 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 336,338 0 0 0 0 253,648 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 343,064 0 0 0 0 258,721 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 349,926 0 0 0 0 263,896 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 356,924 0 0 0 0 269,174 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 364,063 0 0 0 0 274,557 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 371,344 0 0 0 0 280,048 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 378,771 0 0 0 285,649 0 0 0 0 0 0
____ _________ _______________ _____ ________ _______________ ___________ ______ ______ ______ ______
65 (0) 65 17,659,562 2 0 2 416,160 160,023,940 0 440 2 442
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 Abs
Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
6
2050
100%
0 Ph
YEAR
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 4/25/19)
Commercial Development
MU - Retail
Incr/(Decr) in
Finished Lot Square Ft per Sq Ft, Total Total Value of Platted &
SF Value @ Completed Inflated @ Market Commercial Commercial Developed Lots
Devel'd 10% 2,679 2% Value Market Value Sq Ft
Adjustment1 Adjusted Value
0 0 $225.00 $0 0 0 0 0
0 0 225.00 0 0 0 0 1,070,551
0 0 225.00 0 0 0 0 3,787,648
2,679 60,278 229.50 0 0 0 0 (825,209)
0 (60,278) 2,679 234.09 627,127 627,127 2,679 0 (755,526)
0 0 0 238.77 0 0 0 0 (1,312,118)
0 0 0 243.55 0 0 0 0 (1,749,922)
0 0 0 248.42 0 0 0 0 (215,424)
0 0 0 253.39 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 258.45 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 263.62 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 268.90 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 274.27 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 279.76 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 285.35 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 291.06 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 296.88 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 302.82 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 308.88 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 315.05 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 321.36 0 0 0 0 0
______ _________ _________________ _________ _________ _________ _________
2,679 0 2,679 627,127 627,127 2,679 0 0
[1] Adj. to actual/prelim. AV
Commercial Summary
4/25/2019 C NMD Fin Plan 19 Abs
Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co.
7
Apr 25, 2019 11:06 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-20NRSPC)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2020
Delivery Date 12/01/2020
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 10,020,000.00
10,020,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 7,098,193.75
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 1,503,000.00
Debt Service Reserve Fund 918,406.25
2,421,406.25
Cost of Issuance:
Other Cost of Issuance 300,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Underwriter's Discount 200,400.00
10,020,000.00
8
Apr 25, 2019 11:06 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-20NRSPC)
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2020
Delivery Date 12/01/2020
First Coupon 06/01/2021
Last Maturity 12/01/2050
Arbitrage Yield 5.000000%
True Interest Cost (TIC)5.148899%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)5.000000%
All-In TIC 5.380240%
Average Coupon 5.000000%
Average Life (years)23.996
Weighted Average Maturity (years)23.996
Duration of Issue (years)13.855
Par Amount 10,020,000.00
Bond Proceeds 10,020,000.00
Total Interest 12,021,750.00
Net Interest 12,222,150.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 240,435,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 240,435,000.00
Total Debt Service 22,041,750.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 1,968,750.00
Average Annual Debt Service 734,725.00
Underwriter's Fees (per $1000)
Average Takedown
Other Fee 20.000000
Total Underwriter's Discount 20.000000
Bid Price 98.000000
Average
Par Average Average Maturity PV of 1 bp
Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life Date change
Term Bond due 2050 10,020,000.00 100.000 5.000% 23.996 11/29/2044 15,531.00
10,020,000.00 23.996 15,531.00
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 10,020,000.00 10,020,000.00 10,020,000.00
+ Accrued Interest
+ Premium (Discount)
- Underwriter's Discount -200,400.00 -200,400.00
- Cost of Issuance Expense -300,000.00
- Other Amounts
Target Value 9,819,600.00 9,519,600.00 10,020,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2020 12/01/2020 12/01/2020
Yield 5.148899%5.380240%5.000000%
9
Apr 25, 2019 11:06 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-20NRSPC)
BOND DEBT SERVICE
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
06/01/2021 250,500 250,500
12/01/2021 250,500 250,500 501,000
06/01/2022 250,500 250,500
12/01/2022 250,500 250,500 501,000
06/01/2023 250,500 250,500
12/01/2023 250,500 250,500 501,000
06/01/2024 250,500 250,500
12/01/2024 250,500 250,500 501,000
06/01/2025 250,500 250,500
12/01/2025 250,500 250,500 501,000
06/01/2026 250,500 250,500
12/01/2026 15,000 5.000%250,500 265,500 516,000
06/01/2027 250,125 250,125
12/01/2027 20,000 5.000%250,125 270,125 520,250
06/01/2028 249,625 249,625
12/01/2028 50,000 5.000%249,625 299,625 549,250
06/01/2029 248,375 248,375
12/01/2029 55,000 5.000%248,375 303,375 551,750
06/01/2030 247,000 247,000
12/01/2030 90,000 5.000%247,000 337,000 584,000
06/01/2031 244,750 244,750
12/01/2031 95,000 5.000%244,750 339,750 584,500
06/01/2032 242,375 242,375
12/01/2032 135,000 5.000%242,375 377,375 619,750
06/01/2033 239,000 239,000
12/01/2033 140,000 5.000%239,000 379,000 618,000
06/01/2034 235,500 235,500
12/01/2034 185,000 5.000%235,500 420,500 656,000
06/01/2035 230,875 230,875
12/01/2035 195,000 5.000%230,875 425,875 656,750
06/01/2036 226,000 226,000
12/01/2036 245,000 5.000%226,000 471,000 697,000
06/01/2037 219,875 219,875
12/01/2037 255,000 5.000%219,875 474,875 694,750
06/01/2038 213,500 213,500
12/01/2038 310,000 5.000%213,500 523,500 737,000
06/01/2039 205,750 205,750
12/01/2039 325,000 5.000%205,750 530,750 736,500
06/01/2040 197,625 197,625
12/01/2040 390,000 5.000%197,625 587,625 785,250
06/01/2041 187,875 187,875
12/01/2041 410,000 5.000%187,875 597,875 785,750
06/01/2042 177,625 177,625
12/01/2042 475,000 5.000%177,625 652,625 830,250
06/01/2043 165,750 165,750
12/01/2043 500,000 5.000%165,750 665,750 831,500
06/01/2044 153,250 153,250
12/01/2044 575,000 5.000%153,250 728,250 881,500
06/01/2045 138,875 138,875
12/01/2045 605,000 5.000%138,875 743,875 882,750
06/01/2046 123,750 123,750
12/01/2046 685,000 5.000%123,750 808,750 932,500
06/01/2047 106,625 106,625
12/01/2047 720,000 5.000%106,625 826,625 933,250
06/01/2048 88,625 88,625
12/01/2048 815,000 5.000%88,625 903,625 992,250
06/01/2049 68,250 68,250
12/01/2049 855,000 5.000%68,250 923,250 991,500
06/01/2050 46,875 46,875
12/01/2050 1,875,000 5.000% 46,875 1,921,875 1,968,750
10,020,000 12,021,750 22,041,750 22,041,750
10
Apr 25, 2019 11:06 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-20NRSPC)
NET DEBT SERVICE
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Capitalized
Period Total Debt Service Interest Net
Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Reserve Fund Fund Debt Service
12/01/2021 501,000 501,000 501,000
12/01/2022 501,000 501,000 501,000
12/01/2023 501,000 501,000 501,000
12/01/2024 501,000 501,000 501,000.00
12/01/2025 501,000 501,000 501,000.00
12/01/2026 15,000 501,000 516,000 516,000.00
12/01/2027 20,000 500,250 520,250 520,250.00
12/01/2028 50,000 499,250 549,250 549,250.00
12/01/2029 55,000 496,750 551,750 551,750.00
12/01/2030 90,000 494,000 584,000 584,000.00
12/01/2031 95,000 489,500 584,500 584,500.00
12/01/2032 135,000 484,750 619,750 619,750.00
12/01/2033 140,000 478,000 618,000 618,000.00
12/01/2034 185,000 471,000 656,000 656,000.00
12/01/2035 195,000 461,750 656,750 656,750.00
12/01/2036 245,000 452,000 697,000 697,000.00
12/01/2037 255,000 439,750 694,750 694,750.00
12/01/2038 310,000 427,000 737,000 737,000.00
12/01/2039 325,000 411,500 736,500 736,500.00
12/01/2040 390,000 395,250 785,250 785,250.00
12/01/2041 410,000 375,750 785,750 785,750.00
12/01/2042 475,000 355,250 830,250 830,250.00
12/01/2043 500,000 331,500 831,500 831,500.00
12/01/2044 575,000 306,500 881,500 881,500.00
12/01/2045 605,000 277,750 882,750 882,750.00
12/01/2046 685,000 247,500 932,500 932,500.00
12/01/2047 720,000 213,250 933,250 933,250.00
12/01/2048 815,000 177,250 992,250 992,250.00
12/01/2049 855,000 136,500 991,500 991,500.00
12/01/2050 1,875,000 93,750 1,968,750 918,406.25 1,050,343.75
10,020,000 12,021,750 22,041,750 918,406.25 1,503,000 19,620,343.75
11
Apr 25, 2019 11:06 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-20NRSPC)
BOND SOLUTION
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
40.000 (target) Mills
Non-Rated, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6.00% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Period Proposed Proposed Debt Service Total Adj Revenue Unused Debt Serv
Ending Principal Debt Service Adjustments Debt Service Constraints Revenues Coverage
12/01/2021 501,000 -501,000 12,900 12,900
12/01/2022 501,000 -501,000 90,570 90,570
12/01/2023 501,000 -501,000 228,878 228,878
12/01/2024 501,000 501,000 361,802 -139,198 72.21605%
12/01/2025 501,000 501,000 450,046 -50,954 89.82959%
12/01/2026 15,000 516,000 516,000 518,186 2,186 100.42371%
12/01/2027 20,000 520,250 520,250 522,706 2,456 100.47212%
12/01/2028 50,000 549,250 549,250 554,069 4,819 100.87730%
12/01/2029 55,000 551,750 551,750 554,069 2,319 100.42022%
12/01/2030 90,000 584,000 584,000 587,313 3,313 100.56724%
12/01/2031 95,000 584,500 584,500 587,313 2,813 100.48121%
12/01/2032 135,000 619,750 619,750 622,551 2,801 100.45203%
12/01/2033 140,000 618,000 618,000 622,551 4,551 100.73648%
12/01/2034 185,000 656,000 656,000 659,905 3,905 100.59521%
12/01/2035 195,000 656,750 656,750 659,905 3,155 100.48033%
12/01/2036 245,000 697,000 697,000 699,499 2,499 100.35851%
12/01/2037 255,000 694,750 694,750 699,499 4,749 100.68353%
12/01/2038 310,000 737,000 737,000 741,469 4,469 100.60634%
12/01/2039 325,000 736,500 736,500 741,469 4,969 100.67464%
12/01/2040 390,000 785,250 785,250 785,957 707 100.09002%
12/01/2041 410,000 785,750 785,750 785,957 207 100.02633%
12/01/2042 475,000 830,250 830,250 833,114 2,864 100.34499%
12/01/2043 500,000 831,500 831,500 833,114 1,614 100.19414%
12/01/2044 575,000 881,500 881,500 883,101 1,601 100.18164%
12/01/2045 605,000 882,750 882,750 883,101 351 100.03978%
12/01/2046 685,000 932,500 932,500 936,087 3,587 100.38469%
12/01/2047 720,000 933,250 933,250 936,087 2,837 100.30401%
12/01/2048 815,000 992,250 992,250 992,252 2 100.00025%
12/01/2049 855,000 991,500 991,500 992,252 752 100.07589%
12/01/2050 1,875,000 1,968,750 -918,406 1,050,344 1,051,788 1,444 100.13746%
10,020,000 22,041,750 -2,421,406 19,620,344 19,827,510 207,167
12
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2030
Delivery Date 12/01/2030
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 14,870,000.00
Other Sources of Funds:
Funds on Hand* 155,000.00
Series 2020 - DSRF 918,406.00
1,073,406.00
15,943,406.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund 5,829,489.33
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit* 9,790,000.00
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 49,566.67
Cost of Issuance:
Other Cost of Issuance 200,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Underwriter's Discount 74,350.00
15,943,406.00
[*] Estimated balances, (tbd).
13
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2030
Delivery Date 12/01/2030
First Coupon 06/01/2031
Last Maturity 12/01/2060
Arbitrage Yield 4.000000%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.035170%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.000000%
All-In TIC 4.131013%
Average Coupon 4.000000%
Average Life (years)22.217
Weighted Average Maturity (years)22.217
Duration of Issue (years)14.526
Par Amount 14,870,000.00
Bond Proceeds 14,870,000.00
Total Interest 13,214,800.00
Net Interest 13,289,150.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 330,370,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 330,370,000.00
Total Debt Service 28,084,800.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 1,404,000.00
Average Annual Debt Service 936,160.00
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 2060 14,870,000.00 100.000 4.000% 22.217 02/17/2053 25,873.80
14,870,000.00 22.217 25,873.80
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 14,870,000.00 14,870,000.00 14,870,000.00
+ Accrued Interest
+ Premium (Discount)
- Underwriter's Discount -74,350.00 -74,350.00
- Cost of Issuance Expense -200,000.00
- Other Amounts
Target Value 14,795,650.00 14,595,650.00 14,870,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2030 12/01/2030 12/01/2030
Yield 4.035170%4.131013%4.000000%
14
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
BOND DEBT SERVICE
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
06/01/2031 297,400 297,400
12/01/2031 297,400 297,400 594,800
06/01/2032 297,400 297,400
12/01/2032 25,000 4.000%297,400 322,400 619,800
06/01/2033 296,900 296,900
12/01/2033 25,000 4.000%296,900 321,900 618,800
06/01/2034 296,400 296,400
12/01/2034 65,000 4.000%296,400 361,400 657,800
06/01/2035 295,100 295,100
12/01/2035 65,000 4.000%295,100 360,100 655,200
06/01/2036 293,800 293,800
12/01/2036 110,000 4.000%293,800 403,800 697,600
06/01/2037 291,600 291,600
12/01/2037 115,000 4.000%291,600 406,600 698,200
06/01/2038 289,300 289,300
12/01/2038 160,000 4.000%289,300 449,300 738,600
06/01/2039 286,100 286,100
12/01/2039 165,000 4.000%286,100 451,100 737,200
06/01/2040 282,800 282,800
12/01/2040 220,000 4.000%282,800 502,800 785,600
06/01/2041 278,400 278,400
12/01/2041 225,000 4.000%278,400 503,400 781,800
06/01/2042 273,900 273,900
12/01/2042 285,000 4.000%273,900 558,900 832,800
06/01/2043 268,200 268,200
12/01/2043 295,000 4.000%268,200 563,200 831,400
06/01/2044 262,300 262,300
12/01/2044 355,000 4.000%262,300 617,300 879,600
06/01/2045 255,200 255,200
12/01/2045 370,000 4.000%255,200 625,200 880,400
06/01/2046 247,800 247,800
12/01/2046 440,000 4.000%247,800 687,800 935,600
06/01/2047 239,000 239,000
12/01/2047 455,000 4.000%239,000 694,000 933,000
06/01/2048 229,900 229,900
12/01/2048 530,000 4.000%229,900 759,900 989,800
06/01/2049 219,300 219,300
12/01/2049 550,000 4.000%219,300 769,300 988,600
06/01/2050 208,300 208,300
12/01/2050 630,000 4.000% 208,300 838,300 1,046,600
06/01/2051 195,700 195,700
12/01/2051 660,000 4.000% 195,700 855,700 1,051,400
06/01/2052 182,500 182,500
12/01/2052 745,000 4.000% 182,500 927,500 1,110,000
06/01/2053 167,600 167,600
12/01/2053 775,000 4.000% 167,600 942,600 1,110,200
06/01/2054 152,100 152,100
12/01/2054 875,000 4.000% 152,100 1,027,100 1,179,200
06/01/2055 134,600 134,600
12/01/2055 910,000 4.000% 134,600 1,044,600 1,179,200
06/01/2056 116,400 116,400
12/01/2056 1,015,000 4.000% 116,400 1,131,400 1,247,800
06/01/2057 96,100 96,100
12/01/2057 1,060,000 4.000% 96,100 1,156,100 1,252,200
06/01/2058 74,900 74,900
12/01/2058 1,175,000 4.000% 74,900 1,249,900 1,324,800
06/01/2059 51,400 51,400
12/01/2059 1,220,000 4.000% 51,400 1,271,400 1,322,800
06/01/2060 27,000 27,000
12/01/2060 1,350,000 4.000% 27,000 1,377,000 1,404,000
14,870,000 13,214,800 28,084,800 28,084,800
15
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
NET DEBT SERVICE
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Period Total Capitalized Net
Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Interest Fund Debt Service
12/01/2031 594,800 594,800 49,566.67 545,233.33
12/01/2032 25,000 594,800 619,800 619,800.00
12/01/2033 25,000 593,800 618,800 618,800.00
12/01/2034 65,000 592,800 657,800 657,800.00
12/01/2035 65,000 590,200 655,200 655,200.00
12/01/2036 110,000 587,600 697,600 697,600.00
12/01/2037 115,000 583,200 698,200 698,200.00
12/01/2038 160,000 578,600 738,600 738,600.00
12/01/2039 165,000 572,200 737,200 737,200.00
12/01/2040 220,000 565,600 785,600 785,600.00
12/01/2041 225,000 556,800 781,800 781,800.00
12/01/2042 285,000 547,800 832,800 832,800.00
12/01/2043 295,000 536,400 831,400 831,400.00
12/01/2044 355,000 524,600 879,600 879,600.00
12/01/2045 370,000 510,400 880,400 880,400.00
12/01/2046 440,000 495,600 935,600 935,600.00
12/01/2047 455,000 478,000 933,000 933,000.00
12/01/2048 530,000 459,800 989,800 989,800.00
12/01/2049 550,000 438,600 988,600 988,600.00
12/01/2050 630,000 416,600 1,046,600 1,046,600.00
12/01/2051 660,000 391,400 1,051,400 1,051,400.00
12/01/2052 745,000 365,000 1,110,000 1,110,000.00
12/01/2053 775,000 335,200 1,110,200 1,110,200.00
12/01/2054 875,000 304,200 1,179,200 1,179,200.00
12/01/2055 910,000 269,200 1,179,200 1,179,200.00
12/01/2056 1,015,000 232,800 1,247,800 1,247,800.00
12/01/2057 1,060,000 192,200 1,252,200 1,252,200.00
12/01/2058 1,175,000 149,800 1,324,800 1,324,800.00
12/01/2059 1,220,000 102,800 1,322,800 1,322,800.00
12/01/2060 1,350,000 54,000 1,404,000 1,404,000.00
14,870,000 13,214,800 28,084,800 49,566.67 28,035,233.33
16
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Maturity Interest Par Call Call
Bond Date Rate Amount Date Price
4/25/19: Ser 20 NR SP, 5.00%, 100x, 40mls, FG+6% BiRe:
TERM50 12/01/2031 5.000% 95,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2032 5.000% 135,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2033 5.000% 140,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2034 5.000% 185,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2035 5.000% 195,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2036 5.000% 245,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2037 5.000% 255,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2038 5.000% 310,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2039 5.000% 325,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2040 5.000% 390,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2041 5.000% 410,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2042 5.000% 475,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2043 5.000% 500,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2044 5.000% 575,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2045 5.000% 605,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2046 5.000% 685,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2047 5.000% 720,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2048 5.000% 815,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2049 5.000% 855,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
12/01/2050 5.000% 1,875,000.00 12/01/2030 100.000
9,790,000.00
17
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Dated Date 12/01/2030
Delivery Date 12/01/2030
4/25/19: Ser 20 NR SP, 5.00%, 100x, 40mls, FG+6% BiRe
Period Principal
Ending Redeemed Total
12/01/2030 9,790,000.00 9,790,000.00
9,790,000.00 9,790,000.00
18
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
PRIOR BOND DEBT SERVICE
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
06/01/2031 244,750 244,750
12/01/2031 95,000 5.000% 244,750 339,750 584,500
06/01/2032 242,375 242,375
12/01/2032 135,000 5.000% 242,375 377,375 619,750
06/01/2033 239,000 239,000
12/01/2033 140,000 5.000% 239,000 379,000 618,000
06/01/2034 235,500 235,500
12/01/2034 185,000 5.000% 235,500 420,500 656,000
06/01/2035 230,875 230,875
12/01/2035 195,000 5.000% 230,875 425,875 656,750
06/01/2036 226,000 226,000
12/01/2036 245,000 5.000% 226,000 471,000 697,000
06/01/2037 219,875 219,875
12/01/2037 255,000 5.000% 219,875 474,875 694,750
06/01/2038 213,500 213,500
12/01/2038 310,000 5.000% 213,500 523,500 737,000
06/01/2039 205,750 205,750
12/01/2039 325,000 5.000% 205,750 530,750 736,500
06/01/2040 197,625 197,625
12/01/2040 390,000 5.000% 197,625 587,625 785,250
06/01/2041 187,875 187,875
12/01/2041 410,000 5.000% 187,875 597,875 785,750
06/01/2042 177,625 177,625
12/01/2042 475,000 5.000% 177,625 652,625 830,250
06/01/2043 165,750 165,750
12/01/2043 500,000 5.000% 165,750 665,750 831,500
06/01/2044 153,250 153,250
12/01/2044 575,000 5.000% 153,250 728,250 881,500
06/01/2045 138,875 138,875
12/01/2045 605,000 5.000% 138,875 743,875 882,750
06/01/2046 123,750 123,750
12/01/2046 685,000 5.000% 123,750 808,750 932,500
06/01/2047 106,625 106,625
12/01/2047 720,000 5.000% 106,625 826,625 933,250
06/01/2048 88,625 88,625
12/01/2048 815,000 5.000% 88,625 903,625 992,250
06/01/2049 68,250 68,250
12/01/2049 855,000 5.000% 68,250 923,250 991,500
06/01/2050 46,875 46,875
12/01/2050 1,875,000 5.000% 46,875 1,921,875 1,968,750
9,790,000 7,025,500 16,815,500 16,815,500
19
Apr 25, 2019 11:11 am Prepared by D.A, Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~PM (Northfield MD 18:CAPR2519-30IGSPC,30IGSPC)
BOND SOLUTION
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2030
Pay & Cancel Refunding of (proposed) Series 2020 + New Money
40.000 (target) Mills
Assumes Investment Grade, 100x, 30-yr. Maturity
(SERVICE PLAN: Full Growth + 6% Bi-Reassessment Projections)
[ Preliminary -- for discussion only ]
Period Proposed Proposed Debt Service Total Adj Revenue Unused Debt Serv
Ending Principal Debt Service Adjustments Debt Service Constraints Revenues Coverage
12/01/2031 594,800 -49,567 545,233 587,313 42,079 107.71768%
12/01/2032 25,000 619,800 619,800 622,551 2,751 100.44393%
12/01/2033 25,000 618,800 618,800 622,551 3,751 100.60625%
12/01/2034 65,000 657,800 657,800 659,905 2,105 100.31994%
12/01/2035 65,000 655,200 655,200 659,905 4,705 100.71803%
12/01/2036 110,000 697,600 697,600 699,499 1,899 100.27219%
12/01/2037 115,000 698,200 698,200 699,499 1,299 100.18602%
12/01/2038 160,000 738,600 738,600 741,469 2,869 100.38840%
12/01/2039 165,000 737,200 737,200 741,469 4,269 100.57905%
12/01/2040 220,000 785,600 785,600 785,957 357 100.04543%
12/01/2041 225,000 781,800 781,800 785,957 4,157 100.53171%
12/01/2042 285,000 832,800 832,800 833,114 314 100.03774%
12/01/2043 295,000 831,400 831,400 833,114 1,714 100.20619%
12/01/2044 355,000 879,600 879,600 883,101 3,501 100.39804%
12/01/2045 370,000 880,400 880,400 883,101 2,701 100.30681%
12/01/2046 440,000 935,600 935,600 936,087 487 100.05207%
12/01/2047 455,000 933,000 933,000 936,087 3,087 100.33089%
12/01/2048 530,000 989,800 989,800 992,252 2,452 100.24777%
12/01/2049 550,000 988,600 988,600 992,252 3,652 100.36946%
12/01/2050 630,000 1,046,600 1,046,600 1,051,788 5,188 100.49566%
12/01/2051 660,000 1,051,400 1,051,400 1,051,788 388 100.03686%
12/01/2052 745,000 1,110,000 1,110,000 1,114,895 4,895 100.44098%
12/01/2053 775,000 1,110,200 1,110,200 1,114,895 4,695 100.42288%
12/01/2054 875,000 1,179,200 1,179,200 1,181,789 2,589 100.21952%
12/01/2055 910,000 1,179,200 1,179,200 1,181,789 2,589 100.21952%
12/01/2056 1,015,000 1,247,800 1,247,800 1,252,696 4,896 100.39236%
12/01/2057 1,060,000 1,252,200 1,252,200 1,252,696 496 100.03960%
12/01/2058 1,175,000 1,324,800 1,324,800 1,327,858 3,058 100.23080%
12/01/2059 1,220,000 1,322,800 1,322,800 1,327,858 5,058 100.38234%
12/01/2060 1,350,000 1,404,000 1,404,000 1,407,529 3,529 100.25136%
14,870,000 28,084,800 -49,567 28,035,233 28,160,762 125,528
20
G-1
EXHIBIT G
PUBLIC BENEFITS
Total Benefit Per-Unit Benefit Notes
Environmental Sustainability
Solar Energy
1) 13-14 kW of solar power per "Flats" building $448,000 $1,014 $28,000 per building; 180 units benefit
Electric Vehicles
1) 240V outlets $375,000 $848 In every garage, besides the afforable homes
2) EV charging stations $30,000 $68
Critical Public Infrastructure
Major Arterial Development
1) On-Site Suniga Road Upsizing $1,682,640 $3,807 Upsizing cost from a typical 2-lane connector
1) Off-Site Suniga Road $774,800 $1,753 Offsite construction from Redwood to Lake Canal
Pedestrian Connectivity
1) Regional Trail Construction $199,050 $450
Off-Site Infrastructure
1) Off-Site Sewer Construction & Upsizing $538,220 $1,218 To benefit Northfield and the surrounding areas from a failing sewer line
2) Lemay Overpass Contribution $250,000 $566 Estimate
Smart Growth Management
Increased Density
1) Alley-Loaded Homes $820,800 $1,857 Metro District maintained
Public Spaces
1) Reduction in Allowed Density/ More Open Space $4,474,100 $10,122 Northfield is at 8 units/acre vs the allowed 12 units/acre per the "affordable
housing project" land use definition
2) Clubhouse & Swimming Pool $2,000,000 $4,525
3) Increased Landscaped Area (46.9% of site)$723,800 $1,638 Landscaped area beyond a typical project
4) Alta Vista Buffer Area $125,000 $283 Seperates and protects the Alta Vista neighborhood from Suniga
5) Public amenity area $5,000 $11 Public use amenities stationed along regional trail
Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing
1) 14.7% (65 units) of deed-restricted affordable housing $4,420,000 $10,000 $68,000 subsidy per unit to price below 80% AMI
Attainable Housing
1)85.3% (377 units) of attainably priced housing Difficult to Quant.Difficult to Quan.Remainder of project will be priced in a range that someone making 80% to 120%
of AMI could afford
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS $16,866,410 $38,159
Units: 442
Non-Basic Improvements
Disclaimer: The benefits listed above respresent a preliminary estimate in order to provide illustrative representation of the value for public benefit. The illustration is non-binding
pending the execution of a development agreement
Northfield Metro District Public Benefits Evaluation
NORTHFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-3
PUBLIC BENEFITS NARRATIVE
The City of Fort Collins (the “City”) and surrounding Larimer County face a significant
affordable and attainable housing shortage. Situated on one of the last undeveloped parcels of land
within walking distance of Old Town Fort Collins, Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
(“Northfield”) will create an affordable and attainable neighborhood woven into the fabric of
central Fort Collins and advancing the City’s vision for the future.
The Metropolitan District structure will provide the financing mechanisms that make
attaining the City’s stretch outcomes and development objectives possible. Metropolitan District
financing would mitigate increased front-end costs of modern development, meaning increased
costs are not passed directly to residents at the point of sale, and thus keeping housing unit prices
in the affordable and attainable range. Northfield will deliver on these City objectives: Affordable
and Attainable Housing; Environmental Sustainability; Critical Public Infrastructure; and Smart
Growth Management.
1. Affordable and Attainable Housing
The shortage of affordable and attainable housing in Fort Collins is one of the City’s most
pressing concerns. Northfield plans to create housing for the community at prices that are well
below average for the area. The Metropolitan District structure is a critical tool for facilitating the
delivery of housing at both attainable and affordable price points in light of Northfield’s proximity
to downtown Fort Collins and higher-than-average land and development costs in this area.
2
Northfield plans to offer approximately 15% of the total project as affordable housing units
at 80% AMI or lower. These units would be delivered with legally enforceable guarantees for
affordable housing commitments, such as deed restrictions. Additionally, the remaining housing
units in the project are expected to be priced in an attainable range, considered by other cities to
be between 80% and 120% of AMI. Conversations continue with the Fort Collins Housing
Program to determine the best methods of managing the deed restrictions for the affordable units
as well as vetting the sales prices. We are in communication with community land trusts and
affordable housing programs regarding potential partnership as well. Whatever the ultimate
methodology, the deed-restrictions on the affordable homes will be upheld for a minimum of 20
years, and that commitment will be secured through public benefits development agreement
between the developer and the City.
Proximity to Employment Centers (Employee Counts Shown on Map)
Affordable and attainable housing in Northfield’s central location would provide an
extraordinary benefit to the City and its residents. Northfield is located within walking and/or
biking distance to some of the largest employment hubs in the City, including City of Fort Collins
Municipal Offices, Colorado State University, Woodward, and New Belgium Brewing.
Northfield's proximity to these hubs and affordable and its attainable price points set the project
apart from other recent residential developments in Fort Collins. Through Northfield, the City will
gain high-quality, attainable housing near the City’s economic and cultural core, helping reduce
congestion in the City and provide workforce housing.
3
2. Environmental Sustainability
(a) Energy Conservation
The City does not currently require the project to include solar power capability or
charging stations for electric vehicles. Northfield plans to include solar panels on the 12-unit
condominium buildings and the community clubhouse sufficient enough to provide up to 14
kilowatts of power per building. These solar panels will provide the power needed for the common
area spaces, including elevators. The renewable energy provided by the solar panels will also
decrease the common-space maintenance burden for residents in the condominium buildings.
Northfield will also deliver a 240V outlet in every garage (excluding the affordable
homes) to provide a place for the electric vehicle fast-charging stations and further encourage
residents to drive eco-friendly cars. In addition to the outlets, Northfield will provide electrical
vehicle charging stations at parking locations throughout the project, which will be available to
residents and the greater community. These charging stations and electrical outlets demonstrates
that Northfield is an environmentally-friendly community and encourages the use of electric
vehicles to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
(b) Environmental Conservation
Bordering the Lake Canal Wetlands, Northfield’s design goes above and beyond
the City’s requirements to protect and enhance this important ecosystem. The project provides an
enhanced setback from the Lake Canal Wetlands to further protect them from new development.
The connections over Lake Canal will be constructed with low impact box culverts and abide by
and exceed Army Core of Engineers standards for historic protected wetlands.
Northfield will include approximately 26 acres of parks and green spaces, covering
approximately 46.9% of the entire project and far exceeding the City’s requirements. These
landscaped areas will focus on low-water usage designs. Initial hydro-zone calculations indicate
Northfield will use 7.63 gallons of water per square foot, well below the City’s limit of 15 gallons
of water per square foot.
(c) Enhanced Community Resiliency
Northfield is located within the City’s Northside Neighborhoods Plan area. One of
the City’s goals under that plan is improving stormwater drainage for the Dry Creek and Poudre
River Basins to remove lands from the floodplain. The property within Northfield has a high water
table and, through the use of the Metropolitan District structure and financing tools, the site would
be de-watered using a perforated underdrain system, which will facilitate the City’s goal of
improving stormwater drainage in the Dry Creek and Poudre River Basins.
More specifically, Northfield anticipates implementing infiltration galleries and
utilizing both below grade StormTech chambers and a rain garden to enhance stormwater runoff
quantity and quality. These features are in addition to the City’s standard stormwater detention
requirements and water quality capture volumes. The infiltration galleries and rain garden are
Low-Impact Development (LID) features that allow sediment to be filtered out while providing
4
infiltration to protect the environment and reduce the volume of developed runoff. These
measures, combined with the de-watering efforts, will make Northfield and the surrounding
neighborhoods less susceptible to future flooding.
3. Critical Public Infrastructure
(a) Construction of Suniga Road as an Arterial Road
Under the City’s building and zoning rules, a standard project does not require
regional road access bisecting the site. However, Northfield is willing to fulfill the City’s request
that the project include a 4-lane arterial road in order to improve the access to the entire northeast
region of the City. This regional connection will run from Redwood Street to Lemay Avenue,
connecting to the existing portion of Suniga Road to the west of the project.
The Metropolitan District financing tools will help enable the construction of
Suniga Road as an arterial road for the City, which is a much more significant regional
transportation contribution than is typically delivered by projects of Northfield’s size. The
Metropolitan District structure and finance tools facilitate delivery of this stretch outcome by
offsetting the costs and loss of developable space that Northfield faces by dedicating increased
right-of-way to the arterial road. See images below for cross-section comparisons of the ROW
required for an Arterial Street vs a Connector Local Street.
The community gains a vital piece of regional connectivity that alleviates many
traffic concerns in the area, particularly at the intersection of Vine & Lemay, in the North
College/Vine Drive Enhanced Travel Corridor.
5
(b) Off-Site Sewer Improvements
Through the Metropolitan District structure, Northfield is able to advance funds to
improve a dilapidated off-site sewer line at the onset of the project and provide improved sewer
service to Northfield and surrounding neighborhoods when the improvements are needed, allowing
the City to reimburse a portion of those expenditures at a future date. Northfield plans to replace
and upsize the sewer line from Vine Drive, around Alta Vista, and along a portion of Lemay
Avenue. Given the City's capital improvements schedule, it is unlikely that that a City-constructed
line upsizing project at this location could be completed until long after Northfield is built.
Northfield and the Metropolitan District structure would make it possible to finance and replace
the failing sewer line during horizontal construction, providing immediate public benefit to the
community.
6
(c) Regional Trail
Rather than simply designating an on-site easement for the future trail construction
by the City, Northfield plans to finance and deliver the on-site Regional Trail as well as the off-
site pedestrian connection for the northeastern portion up to the intersection at Lemay Avenue and
Conifer Street. The site will also feature buffered bike lanes and wider than required sidewalks.
Given Northfield’s proximity to many employment centers, as well as downtown Fort Collins, the
immediate construction of the Regional Trail will give our residents and the surrounding
community enhanced pedestrian access, thus reducing the need for automobile trips. The
Metropolitan District Structure enables the Regional Trail to be built concurrently with vertical
construction and frees the City to allocate funds that would have been used to construct the trail to
other valuable projects.
7
4.Smart Growth Management and Community and Neighborhood
Livability
Northfield furthers the City’s objectives for Smart Growth Management and Community
and neighborhood Livability. Although Northfield will meet the City’s definition of an “affordable
housing project,” which would allow for increased density to 12 units per acre, Northfield plans to
keep density at 8 units per acre. Remaining at this lower density enables Northfield’s other stretch
outcomes, including constructing Suniga Road as an arterial road and increasing the buffer zone
to protect the Lake Canal Wetlands.
Lower project-wide density also provides Northfield’s residents and the surrounding
community with a more attractive residential area, including more landscaped and open space area
than similarly-sized projects. Current area coverage calculations put the amount of landscaped and
open space at 25.9 acres, or 46.9% of the entire site. This is a much higher proportion of open
space compared to similar residential projects, and especially compared to single-family
developments. Northfield’s density is also the lowest of any recent project with similar product
types that Landmark Homes has developed in Northern Colorado (See table below).
The amount of outdoor space greatly increases the amount of landscaping required,
creating a development challenge because pro forma revenue is lost due to both lost units and
increased landscaping costs. Metropolitan District financing tools help mitigate this challenge and
enable the delivery of enhanced livability and a desirable, defining new urbanist community near
Downtown Fort Collins. The Metropolitan District structure is also a more efficient vehicle for
maintaining the landscaping and open space than a common interest ownership association.
The project will focus on alley-loaded units, which is a major tenant of New Urbanism
planning values and techniques. Residents not situated on right-of-ways will face landscaped open
space as well. Alley-loaded product results in a far superior aesthetic benefit to its residents than
in a code-minimum project, but there are increased costs associated with this design, and the
proposed structure will help fill that funding gap. The Metropolitan District structure is also a
much more efficient vehicle to maintain these alleys than a common interest ownership association
would be.
8
Northfield will also feature a clubhouse and a mixed-use building near the regional trail to
serve the community at large. The clubhouse will provide amenities including a swimming pool,
workout facility, kitchen, and gathering space for residents and public. The mixed-use center will
offer light commercial use on the first floor, residential for-rent units on the second floor, and small
amenities open to the public (e.g. bike repair station, doggie station). Targeted uses for the
commercial space include a day care center, coffee shop, and bike repair shop. Neither amenity is
required by the City, and both are categorized as extraordinary costs that the development is
incurring for the benefit of the residents of Northfield and the community at large. See renderings
of the clubhouse and the mixed-use building below.
9
Northfield will also promote the City’s objective of preserving and enhancing historic
resources. The southeastern edge of Northfield borders the to-be-designated historic Alta Vista
neighborhood. To blend the transition to new development and pay homage to the neighborhood’s
history, Northfield will feature an Interpretive Historical Park and Gateway Features bordering
Alta Vista. These additions were developed in collaboration with neighbors in the Alta Vista
neighborhood and would provide an extraordinary benefit to the City as a whole.
H-1
EXHIBIT H
DISCLOSURE NOTICE
NOTICE OF INCLUSION IN A RESIDENTIAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
AND POSSIBLE PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES
Legal description of the property and address:
Attached hereto as Exhibit A.
This property is located in the following metropolitan district:
Northfield Metropolitan District No. __.
In addition to standard property taxes identified on the next page, this property is subject to a
metropolitan district mill levy (another property tax) of up to:
Fifty (50) Mills.
Based on the property’s inclusion in the metropolitan district, an average home sales price of
$300,000 could result in ADDITIONAL annual property taxes up to:
$1,080.00
The next page provides examples of estimated total annual property taxes that could be due on this
property, first if located outside the metropolitan district and next if located within the metropolitan
district. Note: property that is not within a metropolitan district would not pay the
ADDITIONAL amount.
The metropolitan district board can be reached as follows:
Northfield Metropolitan District No. __
C/O WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA &WALDRON
Attention: Robert G. Rogers
2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000
Centennial, CO 80122
Phone: 303-858-1800.
You may wish to consult with: (1) the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, to determine the specific
amount of metropolitan district taxes currently due on this property; and (2) the metropolitan
district board, to determine the highest possible amount of metropolitan district property taxes that
could be assessed on this property.
2
ESTIMATE OF PROPERTY TAXES
Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value Without the District
Taxing Entity Mill Levies (2018) Annual tax levied
Poudre R-1 General Fund 40.300 $ 870.48
Larimer County 22.403 $ 483.90
Poudre R-1 Bond Payment 12.330 $266.33
City of Fort Collins 9.797 $ 211.62
Poudre River Public Library District 3 $ 64.80
Health District of Northern Larimer County 2.167 $ 46.81
Northern Colorado Water Cons. District 1 $ 21.60
Larimer County Pest Control District .142 $3.07
TOTAL: 91.139 $ 1,968.61
Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value With the District (Assuming
Maximum District Mill Levy)
Taxing Entity Mill Levies (2018) Annual tax levied
Northfield Metropolitan District No. __ 50.000 $1,080
Poudre R-1 General Fund 40.300 $ 870.48
Larimer County 22.403 $ 483.90
Poudre R-1 Bond Payment 12.330 $266.33
City of Fort Collins 9.797 $ 211.62
Poudre River Public Library District 3 $ 64.80
Health District of Northern Larimer County 2.167 $ 46.81
Northern Colorado Water Cons. District 1 $ 21.60
Larimer County Pest Control District .142 $3.07
TOTAL: 141.139 $3,048.61
3
**This estimate of mill levies is based upon mill levies certified by the Larimer County Assessor’s Office in December
2018 for collection in 2019, and is intended only to provide approximations of the total overlapping mill levies within
the District. The stated mill levies are subject to change and you should contact the Larimer County Assessor’s Office
to obtain accurate and current information.
Exhibit A
Property
WILLIAM P. ANKELE, JR.
JENNIFER GRUBER TANAKA
CLINT C. WALDRON
KRISTIN BOWERS TOMPKINS
ROBERT G. ROGERS
BLAIR M. DICKHONER
OF COUNSEL:
KRISTEN D. BEAR
K.SEAN ALLEN
GEORGE M ROWLEY
ZACHARY P. WHITE
TRISHA K. HARRIS
HEATHER L. HARTUNG
MEGAN J. MURPHY
EVE M. GRINA
ALLISON C. FOGG
JENNIFER C. ROGERS
LAURA S. HEINRICH
2154 E. Commons Ave., Ste. 2000 | Centennial, CO 80122 | P 303.858.1800 F 303.858.1801 | WhiteBearAnkele.com
July 3, 2019
City Council Finance Committee
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Re: Clarification of City Staff Questions for Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
Dear Committee Members:
Proponents of the proposed Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 (the “Districts”)
submitted the draft Service Plan for the District on May 6, 2019, and received feedback and questions
from City Staff on June 7, 2019. Based on continued conversation with City Staff, we have been
asked to provide additional clarification of certain information within the Service Plan for the Council
Finance Committee’s review.
First, after conversations with City Staff, proponents of the District have decided to include
240V outlets capable of charging electric vehicles in all garages in the development, including garages
in affordable units. This change to Exhibit G - Public Benefits of the Service Plan will be reflected in
the final draft of the Service Plan submitted for City Council review.
Second, we would like to address questions regarding the pool and clubhouse as Public
Benefits, specifically whether these amenities would be accessible to the public. The pool and
clubhouse would be open to all residents of the Districts, including residents of the affordable housing
units, who often do not have access to these kinds of amenities in other affordable housing
communities. The pool and clubhouse would also be accessible to the public, as required under Title
32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Nonresidents would be able to pay a fee to the Districts and
enjoy the pool and clubhouse, analogous to District residents who pay property taxes to access these
amenities. The plan for the immediate area around the clubhouse and pool includes open space and
pathways available to the general public and easily accessible from the Regional Trail. We see these
amenities as contributing to the objective in the City Plan of Community and Neighborhood Livability
(e.g. “cohesive, distinct, vibrant, safe and attractive neighborhoods,” and “distinctive and attractive
community image, design, and identity”).
Finally, the City Staff has asked whether the amount of open space within the Districts
contributes to Smart Growth Management and qualifies as Public Benefit. Achieving the City’s goal
of smart growth and urban design requires a complicated balance of many factors, including density
Attachment 6
2069.2000; 977850
of development and minimizing detrimental impacts on the natural environment. The development
plan for the Districts takes on that challenge and achieves a striking balance of new urbanist
development models (by focusing on single-family attached housing units) and keeping nature in the
City (by keeping a greater proportion of open space within the District, including the Lake Canal
buffer area, open space around the clubhouse, and open space distributed around the development).
This balance promotes the goals in the City Plan related to Environmental Health, Community and
Neighborhood Livability (e.g. “nature visible and accessible in the City”), and Culture, Parks and
Recreation (e.g. “interconnected and wide network of parks and recreational facilities”).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this additional information to the Council Finance
Committee and look forward to additional feedback and comments from the City as we continue in
this review process.
Sincerely,
Eve M. Grina, Esq., Associate Attorney
WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA & WALDRON
M EMORANDUM
To: Josh Birks and Rachel Rogers
Economic Health & Redevelopment, City of Fort Collins
From: Dan Guimond and Elliot Kilham
Economic & Planning Systems
Subject: Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
EPS #193074
Date: July 2, 2019
This memorandum summarizes Economic & Planning System’s
(EPS) evaluation of the Financial Plan section of the Consolidated
Service Plan (Service Plan) for the Northfield 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
Northfield is a proposed 56.3-acre mixed-use community in
North Fort Collins located west of North Lemay Avenue,
southeast of the Lake Canal and north of East Vine Drive and the
Alta Vista neighborhood, as shown in Figure 1.
The District is proposed to be primarily a residential project
with 442 housing units and approximately 2,700 square feet of
commercial space. The residential component incorporates both
for-sale and rental product, and the commercial component is
oriented towards community serving retail and service uses. The
project is estimated to be completed over the next six years.
Attachment 7
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 2
Figure 1. Northfield Metro District Vicinity Map Diagram
N
W E
S
PROPOSED NORTHFIELD
METRO DISTRICT
500
0
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
1000
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 3
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:
• 40 stacked condos with a projected market value of $306,714.
• 180 flats with a projected market value of $359,040.
• 139 brownstones with a projected market value of $388,518.
• 16 condominiums with a projected market value of $316,200.
• 65 deed-restricted affordable condominiums with a projected market value
of $265,200.
• 2 studio apartments (for rent) with a projected market value of $200,000.
• 2,679 square feet of commercial space with a projected market value of $225 per
square foot. The District proposal suggests targeted uses for the commercial space
include a daycare center, coffee shop, bike repair shop, or another community
serving venture.
Table 1. Proposed Northfield Development Program and Market Values
Description Amount % Total Market Value
Base $ ('20)
Residential
For-Sale Units $/Unit
Stacked Condos 40 9%$306,714
Flats 180 41%$359,040
Brownstones 139 31%$388,518
Condominiums 16 4%$316,200
Affordable Condo (Deed-Restricted)65 15%$265,200
Subtotal/Weighted Avg.440 99.5%$348,175
Rental Units $/Unit
MU - Studio Apts 2 0.5%$200,000
Subtotal/Weighted Avg.2 0.5%$200,000
Total/Weighted Avg.442 100%$347,504
Commercial Sq. Ft.$/Sq. Ft.
Retail/Commercial 2,679 100%$225
Total/Weighted Avg.2,679 100%$225
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 4
The proposed buildout of the Northfield development is estimated to take place over a
six-year period from 2020 to 2025, as shown in Table 2. In total, the Developer
proposes to build an average of 74 residential units per year from 2020 to 2025. The
proposed commercial development is projected to occur in 2022 as shown.
The project is shown with the initial development focused on 34 residences in 2020 (12
stacked condominiums, 8 brownstones, 4 condominiums, and 10 deed restricted
condominiums). The remaining 408 units, including the 2 for-rent studio apartments, are
expected to be built the following five years (2021 to 2025). The last phase of the project
is the final flats and brownstones built in 2023 to 2025.
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 Northfield Absorption Schedule
Residential (Units)
Apt.Stacked Brown-Condo-Affordable Commercial
Description Studio Condos Flats stone miniums Condo [2]Total (Sq. Ft.)
Year
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 0 12 0 8 4 10 34 0
2021 0 28 36 42 8 31 145 0
2022 2 0 45 40 4 24 115 2,679
2023 0 0 48 40 0 0 88 0
2024 0 0 45 9 0 0 54 0
2025 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0
Summary
Total 2 40 180 139 16 65 442 2,679
Average [1]0 7 30 23 3 11 74 447
[1] Average between 2020 to 2025.
[2] Deed-restricted affordable condo.
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 5
Metro District Proposal
Summary
The Service Plan proposes to form three 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
D of the Service Plan. The financial projections are based on a debt mill levy of 40 mills
for residential and commercial districts. In total, according to the Service Plan, the
Developer anticipates issuing approximately $16 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 $31 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
Northfield maximum aggregate mill levy of 50 mills is in-line with this recommended
maximum mill levy. The Public Benefits section of this memo provides more detailed
information on the proposed public benefits provided by the development.
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,
while the commercial section outlines proposed retail uses.
Residential
To help determine their reasonableness, EPS compared the market value assumptions
used in the Financial Plan’s debt capacity estimates with recent sales in Fort Collins. In
addition, EPS compared Northfield’s proposed market values with other comparable
developments in the Fort Collins area.
For-Sale Market Values
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 through May 2019 was $467,303 and that the
average price of a townhome/condominium was $308,640, as shown in Table 3. The
Northfield proposal does not include single family housing. As a result, proposed market
values are compared to the average price of townhomes/condos in the Fort Collins market.
• Stacked Condos: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $306,714 or 0.6 percent
less than the average of recent sales. As a result, the proposed values are in line with
market averages.
• Flats: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $359,040 or 16.3 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 Northfield is to be expected. Moreover, the recent average sales price includes
condo sales, which may bring down the average when looking at a flat, which is
closer to a townhome. While perhaps higher than average, in EPS’s professional
experience, the market values are within an acceptable range. In particular, a market
value higher than the average of recent sales for townhomes but lower than the
average for single family homes is reasonable.
• Brownstones: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $388,518 or 25.9 percent
higher than the average of recent sales. Brownstones are typically categorized as
townhomes, however they offer features more similar to single family homes. Similar
to flats, a market value higher than the average of recent sales for townhomes but
lower than the average for single family homes is reasonable.
• Condominiums: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $316,200 or 2.4 percent
higher than the average of recent townhome/condo sales. As a result, the proposed
values are in line with market averages.
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 7
• Deed-Restricted Condos: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $265,200 or 14.1
percent less than the average of recent sales. As a result, the proposed values are in
line with market averages.
Table 3. Proposed Northfield Market Values Compared to Fort Collins Average Prices
This section also compares Northfield to other recent for-sale residential projects in the
North Fort Collins market area. This comparison reveals that Northfield’s price points for
townhomes and condos largely overlap with the price ranges proposed in recent
residential projects, as shown Table 4 and Figure 2.
Table 4. For-Sale Residential Projects in the North Fort Collins Market
Description Stacked Condos Flats Brownstones Condominiums Deed-Restricted
$306,714 $359,040 $388,518 $316,200 $265,200
$308,640 $308,640 $308,640 $308,640 $308,640
Difference -$1,926 $50,400 $79,878 $7,560 -$43,440
% Difference -0.6%16.3%25.9%2.4%-14.1%
Source: DA Davidson; FCBR; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems
Average Price (May 2019 YTD)
Service Plan (Base $ '20)
Project IStatus Project Start Product Units Price
Compable Projects
Single Family $350,000-$1,300,000
Townhomes $450,000-$550,000
Condos $150,000-$450,000
Single Family 18 $575,000-$600,000
Townhomes 37 $460,000-$500,000
Single Family 567 $400,000-$530,000
Townhomes 110 $330,000-$430,000
Condos 192 $330,000-$400,000
Brownes on Howes Complete 2016 Townhomes 6 $750,000-$1,000,000
Single Family --
Townhomes --
Condos --
Townhomes at Library Park Complete 2017 Townhomes 10 $1,195,000-$1,500,000
The Park at Fossil Ridge Complete 2017 Townhomes 23 $356,000-$415,000
Northfield
Condos $265,000-$316,000
Townhomes $350,000-$390,000
[1] Total housing units for all product types.
Source: Zillow; CoStar; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
442 [1]Service Plan Proposed 2020
Montava Planning Review-Round 4 2020 4,200 [1]
Old Town North Third Phase 2007 450-500 [1]
Revive Under Construction 2015
Mosaic (formerly Eastridge)Under Construction 2016
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 8
Figure 2. Price Range in Comparable Residential Projects and Northfield
Rental Housing Market Values
The Northfield Financial Plan assumes that the average value for apartments in the
development will have a market value of $200,000 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 $179,000 per unit or 11 percent less that the market value assumption,
and the capitalization value was approximately $301,000 or 51 percent more than the
market value assumption. As a result of these comparisons, 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
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
Old Town North Mosaic (formerly Eastridge)Brownes on Howes Townhomes at Library Park Northfield
Price Range
Northfield Average
Sales Price Capitalized Northfield
Description Per Unit [1]Value [2]Assumption
Apartment
Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.)$178,844 $301,154 $200,000
% Difference [3]11%-51%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.
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 9
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 Northfield 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,
254 middle density units, and 446 high density units per year, for a total annual average
of 1,270 units. In comparison, the Developer proposes to develop the Northfield project
at an average of 74 middle density units (multifamily and townhomes) per year from
2020 to 2025. This development schedule implies a capture rate of approximately 30
percent for middle density units. A capture rate of 30 percent is a significant portion of the
residential development market in the Fort Collins market. However, the fact that the
development is 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.
Implied Affordability of Deed Restricted Condo
To understand the affordability benefits offered by the proposed deed restrict condos,
EPS calculated the household income needed to afford the market value of the unit,
assuming 30 percent of this income is dedicated to housing, as shown in Table 6.
EPS calculated an income of approximately $49,000 was needed. To put this in
perspective, this is under 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) for a family of
four in Larimer County and approximately equal to 70 percent of the AMI for a family
of two.
Table 6. Household Income Implied by Deed Restricted Unit
Description Units Amount
Market Value $$265,200
Mortgage Payment
Term years 30
Down Payment %10.00%
Interest Rate %4.50%
Mortgage Payment $/year $14,653
Income Calculation
Housing Costs % Income 30%
HH Income $/year $48,843
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 10
Ultimately, Northfield’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
Mulberry, Waterfield, Water’s Edge, and Montava that will compete with Northfield.
However, North Fort Collins is one of the few remaining growth areas of the city, meaning
it 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.
Table 7. Northfield Development Implied Residential Capture Rate
Table 8. Fort Collins City Plan Future Housing Demand Estimates, 2016-2040
Northfield Fort Collins Implied
Description Average Annual Avg [2]Capture % [3]
2016-2040
Middle Density [1]74 254 29%
Subtotal 74 254 29%
[2] Annual average from CityPlan housing demand forecast completed by EPS.
[3] Capture % = Northfield Average / Fort Collins Average.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[1] 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
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 11
Commercial Development
The Northfield Financial Plan assumes that the commercial space in the development will
have an average value of $225 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS
compared it to the historical five-year average sales price per square foot of retail 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. The five-year average sales price was $200 per square foot or 11 percent less
than the market value assumption used in the Financial Plan, and the capitalized value
was approximately $255 per square foot or 13 percent higher than the market value. As
a result of these comparisons, EPS concludes that the market value used in the Financial
Plan is relatively moderate and generally within a range set by the sales price and
capitalized value benchmarks.
Table 9. Retail Market Value Comparison
Absorption
Northfield proposes to build a total of 2,680 square feet of community serving retail. EPS
finds that this is a reasonable amount of retail for a development of this size. To help
provide context, EPS benchmarked Northfield’s proposed retail development against
historic retail development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in
Table 10. Over the last 11 years, from 2006 to 2017, the city delivered an average
127,365 square feet of retail space per year. As a result, the Northfield proposal implies a
capture rate of 2.1 percent relative to the historic annual average.
Table 10. Northfield Development Implied Retail Capture Rate
Sales Price Capitalized Northfield
Description Per Sq. Ft. [1]Value [2]Assumption
Retail
Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.)$200.00 $255.07 $225.00
% Difference [3]11%-13%0%
[1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft.
[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.
Northfield Fort Collins Northfield
Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture %
2019-2027 2006-2017
Retail 2,680 127,365 2.1%
[1] Capture % = Northfield / Fort Collins Average.
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 12
Metro District Competition in North Fort Collins
Northfield is one of five major planned developments in North Fort Collins, all
proposing metro districts (others include Mulberry, Montava, Water’s Edge, and
Waterfield). At buildout (from 2018 to 2042), the four proposed districts are projected
to result in 7,853 additional housing units. This is 26 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 26 percent is not unreasonable. 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 buildout 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 107 percent in 2021.
Figure 3. Implied Capture Rate Four Metro Districts
7%
40%
107%
58%
50%
39%
73%
40%
25%28%
20%20%
10%11%
20%19%
9%9%8%9%6%0%6%6%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
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
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 13
Financial Analysis
The Service Plan proposes to issue metro district revenue bonds to pay for eligible public
improvements. 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 preliminary public improvement cost estimates in Exhibit D of
the Service Plan. Overall, public improvements associated with the development are
estimated to be approximately $31 million, as shown in Table 11. The Developer
grouped the improvements into two categories, $21 million in “Basic” infrastructure costs
and $10 million in “Non-basic” costs.
• Basic: The Developer included the following items in the estimate of Basic public
improvements: grading, roadway, potable waterline, sanitary sewer, and storm
drainage improvements; open space, parks, and trails; and administrative/design/
permitting, and contingency costs. The Basic improvements generally include in-tract
improvements that are normal costs of development.
• Non-basic: The Developer included the following items in its Non-basic
infrastructure: arterial upsizing and private drive construction, sanitary sewer
upsizing, park and other amenities including a community pool and clubhouse. The
Non-basic improvements include some off-site improvements such as arterial and
sewer upsizing.
Some of these costs categorized as Non-basic should not necessarily be categorized as
public improvements. For example, the non-basic infrastructure includes $2 million for a
community pool and clubhouse. It is unclear from the Service Plan how this will be open
to and serve the public and wider Fort Collins community. However, it will be an amenity
to the development, and help both attract buyers and add value. As a result, it likely
should not count as a public benefit.
The Developer proposes to issue debt generating approximately $13 million in project
proceeds, as shown in Table 11. This debt would cover approximately 41 percent of the
total public improvement costs. The Developer would need to cover the remaining $18.3
million with other funds.
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 14
Table 11. Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs
Description Basic % Non-Basic % Total % Total
Public Improvement Costs
Grading/Miscellaneous $6,697,000 32%$0 0%$6,697,000 21%
Roadway Improvements $3,122,630 15%$3,278,240 31%$6,400,870 20%
Potable Waterline Improvements $617,400 3%$0 0%$617,400 2%
Sanitary Sewer Improvements $148,400 1%$538,220 5%$686,620 2%
Sorm Drainage Improvements $1,889,100 9%$0 0%$1,889,100 6%
Open Space, Parks, and Trails $1,010,000 5%$3,047,850 29%$4,057,850 13%
Admin./Design/Permitting/Etc.$3,777,000 18%$1,923,000 18%$5,700,000 18%
Contingency (20%)$3,452,310 17%$1,757,465 17%$5,209,775 17%
Total $20,713,840 100%$10,544,775 100%$31,258,616 83%
Metro District Project Funds
Series 2020 $7,098,194 55%
Series 2030 $5,829,489 45%
Total $12,927,683 100%
Source: Highland Development Services; Economic & Planning Systems
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 15
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 to the
existing property tax levy of 91.139 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) to the District.
For the residential portion of the property, the maximum District mill levy of 50 mills
would result in an average of $1,242 per year or $104 per month of additional cost to the
tenant. For the commercial portion of the property, the 50 mills would result in an
average of $3.26 per square feet of additional property tax cost per year, as shown.
Table 12. Metro District Mill Levies
Market Assessed Property Tax
Description Value Value Existing District Total
Residential (Units)7.15%91.139 mills 50.000 mills 141.139 mills
Stacked Condos $306,714 $21,930 $1,999 $1,097 $3,095
Flats $359,040 $25,671 $2,340 $1,284 $3,623
Brownstones $388,518 $27,779 $2,532 $1,389 $3,921
Value Condo $316,200 $22,608 $2,060 $1,130 $3,191
Affordable Condo (Deed-Restricted)$265,200 $18,962 $1,728 $948 $2,676
MU - Studio Apts $200,000 $14,300 $1,303 $715 $2,018
Weighted Average $347,504 $24,847 $2,264 $1,242 $3,507
% Total 65%35%100%
Commercial ($/SF)29.00%91.139 mills 50.000 mills 141.139 mills
Retail/Commercial $225 $65 $5.95 $3.26 $9.21
% Total 65%35%100%
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 16
Public Revenue Forecasts and Bond Proceeds
D.A. Davidson estimates that the metro district will generate a total of approximately $50
million in revenues from debt mill levy collections, as shown in Table 13. 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 issue two bond series, one in 2020 and one in 2030
to generate approximately $13 million that can be used to reimburse the Developer for
infrastructure expenditures related to the public improvements.
Table 13. Northfield Metro District Public Revenue and Project Funds
Description Series 2020 Series 2030 Total
Public Revenues
Par Value $10,020,000 $14,870,000 $24,890,000
Interest $12,021,750 $13,214,800 $25,236,550
Total $22,041,750 $28,084,800 $50,126,550
Project Proceeds
Par Value $10,020,000 $14,870,000 $24,890,000
Other Source of Funds [1]$0 $1,073,406 $1,073,406
Refunding Escrow Deposits [2]$0 -$9,790,000 -$9,790,000
Capitalized Interest Fund -$1,503,000 -$49,567 -$1,552,567
Debt Service Reserve Fund -$918,406 $0 -$918,406
Cost of Issuance -$300,000 -$200,000 -$500,000
Unerwriter's Discount -$200,400 -$74,350 -$274,750
Total $7,098,194 $5,829,489 $12,927,683
[1] Funds on hand and previous series reserve funds.
[1] Refinancing previous series and paying off principal of the bond.
Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 17
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 G of the Service Plan describes the proposed public benefits of the Northfield
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.
The Service Plan describes a number of public benefits for the project. These include
creating a New Urbanist community with low-impact development features. They also
include:
• Critical Public Infrastructure – including construction of Suniga Road as an arterial
road and off-site sewer improvements.
• Parks, Open Space, and Trails – including a community pool, regional trail
delivery, and 26 acres of parks and green spaces covering approximately 46.9
percent of the entire project.
• Affordable Housing – approximately 15 percent of units sold at 80 percent of the
area median income (AMI) or lower.
• Attainable Housing – by offering the remaining housing units between 80 percent
and 120 percent of AMI.
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 18
• Environmental Sustainability – including a commitment to 14 kW of solar capacity
per “Flats” building, 240V outlets in every garage (excluding the affordable homes)
for electric vehicle fast-charging stations, and using an estimated 7.63 gallons of
water per square foot, well below the City’s limit of 15 gallons of water per square foot.
• Smart Growth Management – including enabling stretch outcomes in other
categories by keeping density at 8 units per acre, despite qualifying for a density of
12 units per acre through Northfield’s classification as an “affordable housing project.”
Table 14 shows the Developer’s estimates of the value for different public benefits in the
four focus areas outlined by the City. Overall, the Developer estimates that the District is
providing approximately $17 million of public benefits. This amount is greater than the
total estimated bond proceeds of approximately $13 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 Service Plan’s description of public benefits, EPS finds that it is
difficult to determine whether certain District features should be categorized as a public
benefit for the wider community or if they are arguably more appropriately categorized as
an amenity for future homebuyers—thus not a benefit to the public at large. This is
particularly true for the benefits described below, which the Developer has listed under
the Smart Growth Management category.
• Clubhouse and Swimming Pool: The Developer has included $2 million in cost for
the construction of a clubhouse and swimming that potentially will primarily serve
residents of the development. While the Developer gestures at benefits to the wider
community, the clubhouse will definitely serve as an amenity for residents and will in
turn increase home values.
• Reduction in Allowed Density/More Open Space: The Developer includes a
reduction in density from 12 dwelling units per acre to 8 dwelling units per acre,
which the Developer values at approximately $4.5 million. This reduction in density
increases the amount of open space in the project. However, while the Developer
plans to use some increased open space as a buffer to the Lake Canal Wetlands,
much of it will be spread throughout the development. While this open space may
have some environmental benefits, including benefits for stormwater drainage, it
does not preserve habitat. Instead, similar to the clubhouse and swimming pool, this
open space will serve as an amenity to the project, presumably increasing home
values. In addition, smart growth policies are more often associated with increases in
density not reductions. Finally, how the Developer determined the value of this
amenity is not substantiated.
Northfield Metro District Market and Financial Review
Page | 19
• Increased Landscaped Area: The Developer includes increased landscaped area
with an estimated cost of approximately $720,000 as a public benefit. Again, this
increased landscape area serves as an amenity to the development. It is unclear how
landscaped areas would count as “a compelling public space”—an example of benefit
listed in the City’s policy.
Table 14. Northfield Development Public Benefit Estimates
Description Category Benefit % Total
Enivronmental Sustainability
13-14 kW of solar power per "Flats" building Solar Energy $448,000 2.66%
240 V outlets Electric Vehicles $375,000 2.22%
EV charging stations Electric Vehicles $30,000 0.18%
Subtotal $853,000 5.06%
Critical Public Infrastructure
On-Site Suniga Road Upsizing Major Arterial Development $1,682,640 9.98%
Off-Site Suniga Road Major Arterial Development $774,800 4.59%
Regional Trail Construction Pedestrian Connectivity $199,050 1.18%
Off-Site Sewer Construction and Upsizing Off-Site Infrastructure $538,220 3.19%
Lemay Overpass Contribution Off-Site Infrastructure $250,000 1.48%
Subtotal $3,444,710 20.42%
Smart Growth Management
Alley-Loaded Homes Increased Density $820,800 4.87%
Reduction in Allowed Density/ More Open Space Public Spaces $4,474,100 26.53%
Clubhouse and Swimming Pool Public Spaces $2,000,000 11.86%
Increased Landscaped Area (46.9% of site)Public Spaces $723,800 4.29%
Alta Vista Buffer Area Public Spaces $125,000 0.74%
Public Amenity Area Public Spaces $5,000 0.03%
Subtotal $8,148,700 48.31%
Strategic Priorities
14.7% (65 units) of deed-restricted affordable housing Affordable Housing $4,420,000 26.21%
85.3% (377 units) of attainably priced housing Attainable Housing N/A [1]N/A [1]
Subtotal $4,420,000 26.21%
TOTAL $16,866,410 100%
Source: Landmark Homes; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Developer did not provide an estimate for value of attainable housing due to the variability in pricing of housing in a range between 80% and 120% of AMI
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 20
Summary and Conclusions
• Proposed Mill Levies: The proposed Northfield maximum aggregate mill levy of 50
mills is equal to the maximum allowed under the City’s current metro district policy.
• 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.
• Affordable and Attainable Housing: EPS finds that the deed-restricted affordable
condos are priced at or below 80 percent of AMI. The planned market rates units are
also currently priced towards the middle of the market and should be affordable for
someone earning between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI—so called “attainable”
housing.” However, it is important to note that only the deed-restricted affordable
units have guaranteed affordability. Other units will be priced based on the market.
• Residential Absorption: Overall, EPS finds that Northfield’s proposed absorption is
reasonable. Housing is priced toward the middle of the market and includes a number
of different housing options, which will attract a wider market demand segment.
However, Northfield will need to compete with other residential developments planned
for North Fort Collins, including Mulberry, 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 large developments may exceed
overall market demand and result in slower absorption for one or more of the projects.
• Public Benefits: As outlined in Exhibit G Public Benefits, the Service Plan proposes a
number 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 categorization as a public benefit
is questionable and/or the value is either unsubstantiated, including Clubhouse and
Swimming Pool, Reduction in Allowed Density/More Open Space, and Increased
Landscaped Area.
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Marc Rademacher, Recreation Manager
Bob Adams, Director of Recreation
Mike Calhoon, Director of Parks
Date: July 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Summary of Executive Report regarding a council-requested Sports Complex Economic Impact
and Feasibility Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff was requested by Council to conduct a study regarding the economic impact and feasibility
of a multi-use sports complex in city limits. Hunden Strategic Partners (HSP) was selected
through a competitive RFP process to run the study, which was funded through the 2017-18 BFO
process. HSP completed the study and has provided an executive summary of results, as well as
three recommendations for facilities and their expected economic impact.
This presentation will provide a high-level overview of the summary, with the full report being
provided as an attachment.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Would Fort Collins benefit from the addition of a multi-use sports facility of some kind?
2. Does Council want to pursue this further?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2016 Council requested staff to complete a Sports Complex Economic Impact and Feasibility
study. Funded during the 2017-18 BFO process, the study was completed by Hunden Strategic
Partners. Key questions that HSP was tasked with answering were:
• What is the market opportunity for a new sports complex development in Fort Collins?
• What is the existing supply of sports/recreation facility in Fort Collins and the surround
area? What is the level of local demand for a new complex?
• What is the existing state and regional supply of sports complexes that are capable of
hosting large tournaments and events? Would a new facility in Fort Collins present
opportunities to host larger tournaments?
• How is the area hotel market performing? How does this impact the market opportunity
for a new sports complex?
• Based on the comprehensive market analysis, what are the conclusions and
recommendations?
• What are the possible scenarios and site options available for a new facility?
Hunden Strategic Partners conducted a thorough study and will be attending a Council work
session in August to present the executive summary of their finding and recommendations.
Staff will await further direction from Council and City leadership before taking any next steps
regarding the complex.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Executive Summary from Hunden Strategic Partners
2) PowerPoint Presentation
Fort Collins Sports Facility Market and Feasibility
Analysis
July 15, 2019
1
2
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Hunden Strategic Partners Team,including professionals at Perkins +Will,was engaged by the City of Fort Collins to conduct a comprehensive
market,financial feasibility,and economic impact analysis for the development of a sports facility within the city limits.The key questions that HSP was
tasked to answer were:
§What is the market opportunity for a new indoor or outdoor sports complex development in Fort Collins?
§What is the existing supply of sports and recreation facilities in Fort Collins and the surrounding area?Is there a gap in quality or size of facilities?
What is the level of local demand for a new sports complex?
§What is the existing state and greater regional supply of sports complexes capable of hosting impactful tournaments and events?Is there a gap in
supply that a new Fort Collins facility could accommodate?What is the opportunity to host major state and regional tournaments?
§How is the area hotel market performing?What does this mean for the market opportunity for a new sports complex?
§Based on the comprehensive market analysis,what are the conclusions and recommendations?Should multiple scenarios be considered?
§How is the recommended sports facility projected to perform?What is the expected economic,fiscal,and employment impact of such a
development?
§What are the site options for such a development?What are the pros and cons of the potential development sites?
3
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Based on the comprehensive analysis of the market,the needs of tournaments and leagues,the projected development of competitive and
recreation athletic facilities,and the overall market,HSP’s conclusions are targeted to meet Fort Collin’s mission to provide a state-of-the-art
venue that can provide sports opportunities and economic impact for the local community and be a platform for regional and national events.
The focus of the demand analysis was to narrow down the sports or facilities that would have the most potential for economic impact in the
world of sports tournaments.In addition,HSP conducted an analysis of the supply of local and regional facilities for sports,as well as the
demand for sports to determine if more facilities are needed to support local use and how the existing facilities may attract and accommodate
potential tournaments.HSP met with key stakeholders,interviewed and surveyed existing and potential facility users,analyzed the competition,
reviewed the regional tournament opportunity,analyzed the hotel market,investigated comparable situations and worked with the site option to
fit an optimal development program.
Many cities have used youth sports complexes as activity and demand generators to enhance their communities and overall development
efforts.The activity of youth sports complexes (which are also used by adult tournaments)can generate intense usage,which provides hotel
and restaurant activity,especially on weekends.The facility itself must be able to generate enough events on the calendar to keep it operating
without significant financial support.Almost no sports complex can completely pay for itself,so the design and operating concept of any new
facility should ensure that it can maximize revenues and minimize expenses by staying busy during the week with local rentals and on
weekends with tournament activity.The goal is to integrate critical elements that will optimize a local athletic facility that also increases economic
activity from beyond the local area
4
Drive Time Demographics
Economic, Demographic, and Tourism Analysis
The adjacent figure shows the drive-time demographics
(one,two,and three hours)from Fort Collins.Due to
Denver’s distance from surrounding metropolitan hubs,
the majority of the tournament and event attendees will
likely come from within this three-hour radius
(population:5.3 million)
5
Relevant Hotel Supply
Hotel Market Analysis
Fort Collins Hotel Supply
Property Distance Rooms Chain Scale Open
Autograph Collection The Elizabeth Hotel 0.1 164 Upper Upscale Dec-17
The Armstrong Hotel 0.2 45 Indep Jun-28
Best Western University Inn 0.8 70 Midscale Jun-61
El Palomino Motel 1.2 36 Indep Jun-43
Hilton Fort Collins 1.4 256 Upper Upscale May-85
Budget Host Fort Collins 1.5 30 Economy Jun-74
Best Western Kiva Inn 1.6 62 Midscale Feb-82
Americas Best Value Inn Fort Collins 1.7 40 Economy Aug-61
Marriott Fort Collins 3.3 229 Upper Upscale Jun-85
Days Inn Fort Collins 3.5 77 Economy Jun-81
Motel 9 3.5 35 Indep Jun-88
Super 8 Fort Collins 3.6 69 Economy Jun-85
La Quinta Inns & Suites Fort Collins 3.6 135 Midscale Jun-72
Baymont Inn & Suites Fort Collins 3.6 62 Midscale Jul-95
Quality Inn & Suites I 25 North Fort Collins 3.7 87 Midscale Dec-14
Clarion Inn Fort Collins 3.7 110 Upper Midscale Nov-65
Quality Inn & Suites University Fort Collins 3.7 66 Midscale Jun-97
Motel 6 Fort Collins 3.8 127 Economy Sep-78
Comfort Inn Fort Collins North 3.8 62 Upper Midscale Nov-00
Americas Best Value Inn & Suites Ft Collins E at I 25 4.1 120 Economy Jun-85
Candlewood Suites Fort Collins 4.1 83 Midscale Dec-14
Courtyard Fort Collins 4.5 112 Upscale Mar-96
Holiday Inn Express & Suites Fort Collins 4.6 89 Upper Midscale Oct-05
Comfort Suites Fort Collins 4.6 66 Upper Midscale Jul-98
Homewood Suites by Hilton Fort Collins 4.6 99 Upscale May-07
Hampton Inn Fort Collins 4.6 75 Upper Midscale Oct-96
Residence Inn Fort Collins 4.6 113 Upscale Jul-99
Home2 Suites by Hilton Fort Collins 4.9 108 Upper Midscale Apr-18
Hilton Garden Inn Fort Collins 5.2 120 Upscale Sep-07
Cambria hotel & suites Fort Collins 5.3 90 Upscale Sep-08
Fairfield Inn & Suites Fort Collins South 5.6 106 Upper Midscale Nov-18
AmericInn Lodge & Suites Fort Collins South 8.8 61 Midscale Nov-00
Days Inn Wellington Fort Collins Area 8.8 93 Economy Jun-04
Total/Average 3.72 3,097 --Jun-90
Source: Smith Travel Research
The adjacent table details the supply of hotel options in
the city.Approximately 3,100 rooms among 33 hotels are
currently offered in Fort Collins.
6
Lodging Summary
Hotel Market Analysis
As detailed in the lodging summary table above,the existing hotel supply is fairly evenly distributed among chain scales,
providing different price points and quality levels for potential visitors.
7
Map
Hotel Market Analysis
The adjacent figure shows the location of and chain scales
of the competitive hotel set.Tournaments and groups for
sports typically prefer lower-cost,branded hotels with built-in
breakfast,such as Hampton Inn,Fairfield,Hyatt Place,etc.
Due to cost and efficiency,they tend to avoid full-service
hotels.The majority of the preferred branded,select service
hotels are located 4.5 miles south of downtown Fort Collins.
8
Local Athletic Supply -Outdoor
Local Sports Supply Analysis
The adjacent table details the existing local
athletic outdoor athletic supply in Fort Collins.
Currently,Fort Collins Soccer Complex and
Rolland Moore Park are the only venues large
enough to accommodate tournaments and
events.However,the Fort Collins Soccer
Complex is limited by availability,lack of lights,
and support infrastructure,while Rolland
Moore suffers from a lack of support amenities
required to accommodate events.As shown,
the market offers collection of 2-plex
diamonds,but those facilities not large enough
to host tournaments that generate impact and
visitation.Fort Collins area clubs are leaving
the city and traveling to Loveland and Greeley
for weekend tournaments throughout the
summer months.
Local Outdoor Athletic Complex Supply
Venue Location
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
T
u
r
f
F
i
e
l
d
s
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
B
a
s
e
b
a
l
l
/
S
o
f
t
b
a
l
l
B
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
T
e
n
n
i
s
S
a
n
d
V
o
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
Other
City Park Fort Collins ----2 ------Baseball field with bleachers and adjacent softball field
Edora Park Fort Collins ----2 --6 --
Fort Collins Soccer Complex Fort Collins 11 ----------Field arrangement and quantity can vary
Fossil Creek Park Fort Collins ----2 2 5 --
Greenbriar Park Fort Collins ----2 ------
Martinez Park Fort Collins ----2 3 4 --
Rolland Moore Park Fort Collins ----4 5 8 2 Temporary multipurpose fields can be created in the outfield
Spring Canyon Park Fort Collins ----2 3 3 2
Spring Park Fort Collins --2 ------
Troutman Park Fort Collins 4 ----1 2 --
Twin Silo Park Fort Collins ----2 --4 --
Warren Park Fort Collins 2 --1 1 4 1
Barnes Park Loveland ----10 ------Batting cages
Centennial Baseball Complex Loveland ----6 --4 --
Loveland Sports Park Loveland 8 1 --2 --2 One turf championship field
Diamond Valley Sports Complex Windsor ----3 ------
Source: Various Sources
9
Local Athletic Supply
The adjacent map shows the location of relevant outdoor
athletic complexes in the Fort Collins market.
Local Sports Supply Analysis
10
Local Athletic Supply
The adjacent table details the existing supply
of indoor sports complexes in Fort Collins.
Power to Play,the premier event-oriented
indoor complex in the entire Denver market,is
focused on attracting and producing basketball
tournaments,but HSP understands that they
are beginning to penetrate the volleyball
tournament market.The two indoor synthetic
turf facilities,Edge Sports Center and Arena
Sports,both have uncertain futures,presenting
potential opportunity for indoor turf in any new
development.As shown,only one facility in
Fort Collins area offers more than two
basketball courts in one location,indicating a
major supply gap.
Relevant Local Indoor Athletic Complex Supply
Venue Location
I
n
d
o
o
r
S
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
T
u
r
f
B
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
V
o
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
I
n
d
o
o
r
T
e
n
n
i
s
P
o
o
l
I
c
e Other
The Edge Sports Center*Fort Collins 1 ----------Batting cages
Endora Pool Ice Center (EPIC)Fort Collins --------1 2 10-lane, 50m pool, seating for 1,000
Mulberry Pool Fort Collins --------1 --6-lane, 25-yard
NoCo Ice Center Fort Collins ----------1
Northside Aztlan Community Center Fort Collins --3 3 ------Weight room
Fort Collins Senior Center Fort Collins --1 1 --1 --4-lane, 25-yard
Budweiser Events Center Loveland --1 1 ----1 7,200-seat arena
Arena Sports LLC*Windsor 1 --3 ------
Norco Volleyball Club Windsor ----6 ------
Power 2 Play Sports Events Center Windsor --6 6 ------Concession and lounge area between courts
*Uncertain future
Source: Various Sources
Local Sports Supply Analysis
11
Local Athletic Supply
The adjacent map shows the location of relevant indoor
athletic complexes in the Fort Collins market.
Local Sports Supply Analysis
12
Competitive Regional Supply
State and Regional Sports Analysis
The adjacent figure details the competitive
outdoor athletic complexes throughout the
greater region.Aurora Sports Park and
Dick’s Sporting Goods Park,which both
offer ore than 24 fields,are considered
the premier outdoor multipurpose
complexes in Denver market and are the
primary destinations for existing outdoor
events.Fort Collins area residents
traveling more than 50 miles for soccer
events on weekends.Greeley is a major
destination for Fort Collins area baseball
clubs for tournaments and events
throughout the summer months.
13
Competitive Regional Supply
State and Regional Sports Analysis
The adjacent figure shows the location of the
competitive outdoor sports complexes in the greater
region
14
Competitive Regional Supply
State and Regional Sports Analysis
The adjacent table details the competitive
regional indoor supply.Other than Power to
Play,only one facility in the regional market,
Gold Crown Fieldhouse,offers more than 2
basketball courts in one location.There are
also multiple club-operated indoor volleyball
complexes in Denver market that are
unavailable for outside use.Overall,HSP’s
analysis suggests that the competitive
supply of comprehensive indoor complexes
capable of accommodating tournaments is
lacking compared to outdoor complexes.
Relevant Indoor Regional Athletic Supply
Venue Location
Distance from
Fort Collins (mi)
I
n
d
o
o
r
S
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
T
u
r
f
B
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
V
o
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
I
n
d
o
o
r
T
e
n
n
i
s
P
o
o
l
I
c
e
Veterans Meorial Aquatics Center Thornton, CO 52.0 --------1 --
George J Meyers Pool Arvada, CO 53.7 --------1 --
Sport Stable Superior, CO 58.4 1 2 4 ----1
Ice Centre at Promenade Westminster, CO 59.1 ----------3
Gold Crown Fieldhouse Lakewood, CO 68.0 --6 8 ------
Carmody Recreation Center Lakewood, CO 74.2 --------1 --
Colorado Momentum Volleyball Centennial, CO 80.3 ----4 ------
Colorado Volleyball Association Englewood, CO 82.3 ----3 ------
Play it Now Sports Colorado Springs, CO 130.0 1 --4 ------
Source: Various Sources
15
Competitive Regional Supply
State and Regional Sports Analysis
Adjacent figure shows the location of the competitive
indoor sports complexes in the greater region
16
Triple Crown Sports
§Triple Crown Sports was established in 1982 and is based
out of Fort Collins.The group will produce 119 events in 36
states in 2019.Approximately 70 percent of the events are
baseball or fast-pitch softball,while the remainder are
comprised of lacrosse,basketball,and volleyball.
§Triple Crown produces the largest softball event in the
country over the 4th of July.The event uses fields across 27
cities in Colorado.Triple Crown also produces the 2nd
largest baseball event in the country in Omaha during
College World Series.
§Triple Crown produces the number one volleyball event in
country,utilizing 65 courts in the Kansas City Convention
Center.This features the highest level athletes of any event
in Unites States.
§The average event is 3.5 days.Some national events last
a week,while other events are smaller regional two-day
events.The typical overnight stay is three or four nights
per visitor.
§They are currently producing 12 baseball events and 6
fastpitch events in the state of Colorado.These are
occurring in Aurora,Johnstown,Windsor,Loveland and
Fort Collins.Events typically last 3 days and attract 150
teams per event.
§While not their focus,Triple Crown produces one small
basketball event at Regis University (15 teams)and they
are planning first lacrosse event (30 to 40 teams).
Lacrosse is considered to still be in its infancy in
Colorado.
Demand Analysis and Stakeholder Feedback
17
Triple Crown Sports
§Fort Collins offers everything organizers and families are
looking for in a sports destination,including nature,recreation,
attractions,restaurants,and infrastructure.The only thing it
lacks are appropriate event facilities and lodging options.
§Triple Crown is extremely excited that the city is considering
this opportunity.The area features great athletes,coaches,
and teams,and can be a premier sports event destination.
§Citizens are leaving the community on Memorial Day,4th of
July,Labor Day,and Christmas for surrounding communities.
Fort Collins has not reached its potential as a tourist
destination.
§The distance from the Denver International airports is not an
issue.One hour is feasible,and could even be a selling point.
§There would be incredible benefits to producing events in
their hometown market.If the appropriate facility existed,
they would absolutely relocate existing events throughout
country as well as create new events in Fort Collins.
§The primary facility needs for Triple Crown include:
§8 senior baseball synthetic turf fields with 400’
permanent fences and lacrosse/soccer full-size
cut-out wings,as well as portable fences,portable
mounds,and lights.
§8 youth softball synthetic turf fields with 300’
permanent fence and lacrosse/soccer small
dimensions as well as portable fences,portable
mounds,and lights.
§8 lacrosse/soccer Kentucky Bluegrass Fields
fields (not as critical as diamonds)
Demand Analysis and Stakeholder Feedback
18
Triple Crown Sports
The adjacent figure shows an example of
cut-out wings for outfield overlays with
multipurpose fields.These overlays,
combined with synthetic turf and portable
mounds,provide ultimate flexibility for all
baseball,softball,and other turf-sport age
groups.400’diamonds can accommodate
regulation multipurpose fields,but only 300’
diamonds can only accommodate modified
youth fields.
Demand Analysis and Stakeholder Feedback
19
Triple Crown Sports
§This facility,with 16 synthetic turf diamonds and multipurpose
fields overlays,would be the premier outdoor diamond
complex in the state.
§This type of complex would attract a national audience for up
to 20 weeks per year,including 8 major national events
produced by Triple Crown.
§With 16 fields,the complex could host up to 75 teams,plus
an additional 50 teams throughout the city.This venue would
attract 125 teams over three days,on average.Some events
would last five or six days.
§Other major events would be driven by area local rights
holders including local premier clubs,USSSA,AAU and
other governing bodies.
§Future phases of development recommended by Triple
Crown include:
§24 pickleball courts
§A 500,000-square foot convention center for
basketball and volleyball events
§Convention center complexes are typically required to
produce major national events that drive significant
visitation and room nights to a community.
§A dedicated indoor complex with six to eight basketball
courts would certainly accommodate demand from area
clubs,but the events would be locally and regionally-
based.This type of facility would not be large enough to
attract national events.
Demand Analysis and Stakeholder Feedback
20
Triple Crown Sports
§Fort Collins does not currently offer the hotel supply to
support recommended diamond development.With the
current situation,they will lose tax dollars to surrounding
communities if more hotels are not developed.
§Triple Crown is very interested in this opportunity,not only
as event producers,but as local citizens that want to
showcase Fort Collins to the rest of the country.
§Triple Crown would love to be intimately involved in this
process moving forward.However,they would not want to
manage the complex due to concerns about the perception
of a third-party prioritizing their own interests over that of
the community.They would certainly consult with the city
for scheduling and deal negotiations.
§It is important that the city understands that these
venue are not designed to make money.The benefits
are the economic impact to the community.
§Potential long-term facility recommendation for Triple
Crown include:
§Two ice hockey sheets
§One competitive swimming pool
Demand Analysis and Stakeholder Feedback
21
Volleyball Stakeholders
§There is a major need for for indoor court training and
practice space for area volleyball programs.There is a
waiting list for many clubs due to lack of court times.
§NORCO built their own complex and a few clubs are
training at Power to Play,but many clubs are utilizing any
available gym space they can find.This includes senior
centers,churches,elementary schools,which present
limited availability and scheduling challenges.
§Area clubs are constantly travelling to Colorado Springs
and Denver for Sunday events.
§Power to Play is primarily focused on basketball,
specifically as it relates to hosting events.The area is a
hotbed for volleyball,but there are no available facilities.
Demand Analysis and Stakeholder Feedback
§Volleyball season runs from October through June.
§Six new regulation courts would be ideal.This facility
would likely be occupied by at least two club teams
from October through May.
§Six courts in one location would meet needs of Fort
Collins area volleyball clubs,but it would not meet the
needs of all of Northern Colorado.The entire entire
region is lacking training space.
§Area clubs are utilizing CSU facilities when available,
but there are challenges with scheduling.Younger
age groups forced to train late at night due to lack of
available gyms in the community.
22
USA Volleyball Rocky
Mountain Region
§There are currently 8,000 total members within the Rocky Mountain
Region of USA Volleyball .Fort Collins is growing,with 12 to 14 total
clubs in the market accounting for 25 percent of total membership.
§One-day tournaments,the Power League,occur every Sunday
from January through April.Two major multi-day events currently
occur in the region (downtown Denver)each year over Martin
Luther King and Presidents Day Weekend .
§The Power League is organized by USA Volleyball .They occur on
Sundays because that is the only day collegiate and high school
gyms are available.
§There are six or seven 2-and 4-court volleyball facilities in greater
Denver market that are run by premier clubs or third parties.These
are the primary indoor venues in addition to Power to Play.
§Front Range Volleyball Club holds one annual event at
Denver Convention Center that utilizes 101 courts.
§Fort Collins area clubs are hosting Sunday Power
Leagues at area schools,NORCO,and Power to Play.
These one-day events are attracting teams from
Cheyenne,Casper,and Gillette.
§A new facility would absolutely be occupied by area
clubs during the week.With 6 regulations courts,it would
host 24-team Power Leagues on Sundays,with up to 25
percent potentially staying overnight.
§There is also potential for area clubs to create and host
their own events in a new facility.The demand is there.
Tournament Opportunity Analysis
23
AAU Basketball Colorado
§The state is in desperate need of a comprehensive indoor
facility.AAU programs and events are typically relegated to
high school gymnasiums due to lack of available court space
in the market.
§AAU events are currently occurring at Power to Play or Gold
Crown in Denver.Power to Play has good reputation,but they
are not attracting too any teams from Denver area due to
accessibility challenges and limited by spectator space.
§Triple Crown would likely drive a few events to any new
facility in Fort Collins.This is a major advantage.
§Denver is not a premier destination for major AAU basketball
events that attract Division One coaches due to accessibility
constraints.A Fort Collins complex likely wouldn’t be able to
host national events,but could host smaller events.
§Fort Collins would likely be destination for middle school age
groups.High schoolers are playing more on a national circuit
for events,and Denver is not a destination for high school
events.
§There are 30 to 40 AAU-sanctioned events currently
occurring in market.There is enough club presence in Fort
Collins area to drive middle school events,but high school
will be difficult.
§Middle school club basketball is now year-around.Many kids
are just playing club ball now.
§With 8 courts under one roof,there is opportunity for 15 to 20
weekend events each year.Events will likely attract Denver
area clubs,but a portion may stay overnight.
Tournament Opportunity Analysis
24
Other Opportunities
Every community is looking for their “silver bullet”as it relates to hosting events
and driving sports tourism.As detailed in the management analysis,owning and
booking venues is hard work,especially due to the competition in the current
environment.Esports,for instance,certainly presents opportunity,but with a few
exceptional game and competitions,they are not driving significant traffic to a
destination (sports tourism)and,as a local draw,present challenges since the
real money is being made by the brands who push online viewing.Other trending
non-traditional sports that may present opportunity at an indoor facility include:
§Badminton, Fencing
§Futsal, Team Handball, Weightlifting
§Gymnastics –Need local gym operator who wants to be a promoter
§Martial Arts (all disciplines)
A few of these sports were identified as opportunities throughout the market
analysis.While these sports are unlikely to drive multiple major annual events to a
new complex in Fort Collins,a new venue would be able to accommodate a
variety of other flat-floor sports.These were assumed in the projections in
Chapter 10 and 11 .
Tournament Opportunity Analysis
25
Hotel Performance
Hotel Market Analysis
The adjacent table summarizes the
performance of the competitive hotel set
over the last five years.After three years
of stagnant performance,new supply
entered the market in 2018,resulting in
increased hotel room night demand.
While occupancy decreased,the market
is expected to stabilize once the new
hotel properties are absorbed.Average
Daily Rate (ADR)is at a level ($108)that
is relatively attractive for event planners
and tournament organizers.
26
Heat
Charts
Hotel Market Analysis
The adjacent table shows the occupancy by day of the
week per month for the twelve months following
September 2017.Days of the week with occupancy
between 75 and 80 percent are shown in yellow,
suggesting mild displacement and unaccommodated
demand.Orange shows days with 80 to 90 percent
occupancy,suggesting very likely displacement.Days
in red are for times when occupancy was beyond 90
percent for the set,suggesting near-certain
displacement.As shown,there is a significant
opportunity to fill gaps the annual hotel calendar on the
weekends in winter months.This coincides with the
timing for indoor winter sports tournaments and other
flat-floor events.Due to the high occupancy levels in
the summer months (greater than 80 percent),new
hotel development will likely be necessary in order to
capture the entirety of the impact generated from an
outdoor complex.
27
Heat
Charts
Hotel Market Analysis
Consistent with the previous slide,the adjacent
heat chart demonstrates attractive weekend rates
for price-conscious tournament organizers,
especially in the winter months.Rates at
competitive hotels are the lowest on the weekends
in the winter months.Once again,this is a positive
indicator for an indoor sports opportunity in a new
complex in Fort Collins.
28
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Based on the results of the market analysis detailed throughout this report,HSP presents the following headlines.
§HSP’s analysis indicates significant opportunity for a new sports complex in Fort Collins to both accommodate local demand and drive sports
tourism to the city.The economic and demographic profile of the community,combined the destination appeal of Fort Collins,the presence of
large premier area sports organizations,and passionate local stakeholders,suggests that the demand for both indoor and and outdoor sports
exceeds the existing supply.While there are challenges facing the community,the level of opportunity HSP identified may result in a phased
project that will establish Fort Collins as a regional and perhaps,national destination for sports tourism.
§Locally,the lack of available,quality indoor athletic facilities presents major challenges for area clubs,both indoor and outdoor sports,to train and
practice throughout the season and offseason.HSP’s analysis suggests that there is enough demand generated by Fort Collins area
organizations to fill a new court/gymnasium facility in the evenings throughout the winter season and drive significant rental revenue to any new
indoor complex.However,due to the structure of the sport of volleyball in the state,there are only two existing major multi-day volleyball
tournaments in the entire Denver market.The development of a flexible indoor court complex would certainly result in the creation of new local
and regional events and would also be able to accommodate other flat-floor activities such as pickleball,wrestling,robotics,indoor drones and
Esports,but the primary benefit would be to Fort Collins area sports organizations.
§In addition,there is a significant demand for indoor synthetic turf training space from baseball,softball,and soccer organizations in the winter
months.However,the development a an indoor multipurpose space would likely serve the local population with the shortfall of gym space,but
may only generate minimal net new economic impact in the community.If the goal of any new development in Fort Collins is to drive sports
tourism,visitation,and hotel room nights,there may greater opportunity with a different type of development.
29
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
§The presence of Fort Collins-based Triple Crown Sports presents tremendous advantages for any future sports development in the market.The
organization is very excited about the potential opportunity in Fort Collins not only as event producers,but as residents that understand everything
the community has to offer.Fort Collins offers the amenities necessary to drive national sports tourism,other than an appropriate venue and
adequate hotel supply to support that venue.If a quality 16-diamond field complex with the appropriate support amenities were developed in Fort
Collins,Triple Crown would relocate existing national events to Fort Collins and create new events in the market.Triple Crown would produce up to
10 national events each year,the majority of which would be at least 3 days and would bring more than 100 teams to Fort Collins.There would
likely be opportunity for an additional 10 events produced by other governing bodies.Triple Crown suggested that future phases should include
multipurpose fields,pickleball,an indoor event center,and ice and water complexes.
§While an outdoor diamond complex may present the greatest opportunity for hosting impactful events,the existing hotel market will present
challenges.The majority of the branded select-service properties in Fort Collins are performing at greater than 75 percent occupancy from June
through September,the primary season for outdoor baseball,softball,and soccer events.If Fort Collins cannot capture the room night demand
driven by an outdoor complex,then surrounding communities may reap the rewards of Fort Collins’investment.New hotel development may be
necessary to support a new outdoor sports complex development.
§If not for Triple Crown’s presence in the community and interest in producing events,HSP’s primary recommendation would be to develop an
indoor court complex.This is not only due to the level of demand locally and the potential development of a competitive new outdoor complex in
Windsor,but also the lack of competitive supply indoor regionally and the hotel seasonality.However,an organization with the size and resources of
Triple Crown,as well as the proven ability to produce major impactful athletic events,should not be ignored.It will be up to Fort Collins’leadership
to determine the goals of any sports development project.
30
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
§Ice and aquatics complexes,generally,are extremely difficult to operate financially and do not generate the amount of economic impact that
traditional sports complexes generate.While there is certainly need for another pool in the market for school and club swim teams,the limited
impact potential combined with the proposed ice and aquatics development in Larimer County,indicate that ice and aquatics should not be a top
priority for a new Fort Collins complex.In addition,there is opportunity to grow the sports of tennis locally with new facility development,
specifically indoor.But the impact potential of tennis is limited due to the number of athletes that tournaments attract.
§In a market with such opportunity,it will likely be up to city leadership to determine the priority of any new sports development:
accommodating local needs vs.hosting national events and driving sports tourism.There is opportunity for both in Fort Collins.
§The sports complex location will be important.Sports and event facilities benefit the most when located in close proximity to a community’s
hospitality package.The amenities that make an attractive package include amenities such as hotels,restaurants,access to major transportation
routes.Additional criteria that can impact the feasibility of a project include site ownership/control,cost of acquisition (if any),as well as site work
and construction costs.Only three sites identified by the project team are large enough to accommodate full build-out (indoor and outdoor)plus
room for future expansion.These are detailed in the site analysis.
§Sport tourism represents one of the fastest growing sectors in tourism.Destinations that foster the inner sport tourism entrepreneur will gain
success by building programs of events and activities that deliver sustainable economic,social and promotional benefits.As Fort Collins looks to
the future,the community must continually adapt to remain a sports tourism destination.When it comes to driving tourism,filling hotel rooms and
generating economic impact in the community,the landscape of tourism,hospitality and destination appeal is competitive,and the more that can
be done to connect with visitors,the better.As consumer desire or demand grows,Fort Collins needs to be strategic and encourage sport
tourism innovation.
31
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
HSP’s recommendations for Fort Collins include one of two initial development scenarios:
Develop a new,8-court (regulation basketball;16 volleyball)indoor sports facility that can accommodate mid-week demand driven by local groups
and host basketball tournaments,volleyball,wrestling,and other flat-floor sports (and non-sports)events during the off-season for area hoteliers.
(Scenarios 1-A and 1-B)
or
Develop a new 16-diamond synthetic turf outdoor sports facility (with multipurpose field overlays)that can host major regional and national baseball
and softball tournaments,driven in part by demand generated by Triple Crown.(Scenario 2)
Long-term,HSP recommends that any project consider the opportunity for future expansion that includes both indoor and outdoor components.This
was considered in the site analysis.
Establish a clear vision and management strategy for the facility,which allows for more freedom and entrepreneurial methods of attracting business.
There are a variety of operational models that exist across the country in addressing this increased demand on recreational facilities usage for purposes
of economic development (tourism).A close working relationship must exist between business development (tourism driven)efforts and facility
operations.A mutual understanding and respect of each stakeholder’s goals,objectives and priorities should be reviewed and discussed.
Create a model to reinvest a portion of economic impact to the proposed facility.This may take the form of fees or assessments that are dedicated
to the facility from revenue sources such as hotel tax and sales tax.The economic,fiscal and employment impact of these investments will be
significant in terms of new supported jobs,spending,hotel room nights,and local taxes.
32
Additional Context
Executive Summary
Additional questions arose in response to HSP’s assumptions and recommendations.They are clarified below:
Q:It seems as though the hotels are currently busy during the summer months.Will an outdoor complex create a lot of economic
development?
A:As shown in our analysis,Fort Collins hotels are highly occupied during summer weekends.If a new outdoor complex is developed,it is very likely
that much of the hotel and restaurant impact will be compressed outside of the borders of Fort Collins to other nodes of hotels,restaurants and
shopping,such as Loveland.This results in a lower impact than would otherwise be captured,unless and until more hotels are developed in Fort
Collins.For this reason,the outdoor complex scenario generates about the same impact as the indoor complex,despite a much higher volume of
overall usage in the outdoor complex.For the indoor complex,hotels are generally available to absorb most hotel and other impact in the colder
months.As a result,the net impact to Fort Collins is similar for the indoor and outdoor complexes,suggesting a higher return on investment for the
indoor facility.
Q:Will location of the facility affect the overall economic impact generated?
Location of the facility also may have effect on the overall economic impact generated.For example,restaurants and retailers located in Centerra or
Windsor could realize more of the impact for a facility located on the east or south side of Fort Collins,versus a location more north,central or west in
the community.Also,if a facility or complex is built in a difficult to access area,it could hinder its attractiveness and therefore,impact.
33
Additional Context
Executive Summary
Q:One need that is missing at the current time in Fort Collins is an indoor turf field.Is this something to explore now or in the future?
A:An indoor turf option would be appreciated and used by local organizations,but would fail to bring many impactful tournaments and events.A single
turf field is a great amenity and would be highly utilized throughout much of the year,but it does not have the ability to hold impactful tournaments,
unless it is divided up into multiple smaller fields for very young players.Tournaments require multiple fields.The cost to develop multiple indoor fields is
very high.While there are many needs in Fort Collins,the two scenarios recommended by HSP will provide a much more immediate economic impact
as well as relieve pressure on local teams/facilities.
Q:We have heard that the Windsor Softball/Baseball Complex may be revived.Does this change the need of the outdoor diamond complex?
A:For several years,there were plans for a major sports complex,Rocky Mountain Sports Park,to be developed in Windsor,CO.This facility was
originally slated to have dozens of fields,restaurants and hotels and would have had a major impact on any future development in Fort Collins.
However,the complex has reportedly been cancelled in totality as of early 2019.The private development model for major youth sports complexes has
not occurred with success in any market without public sector financing or significant participation.HSP believes that unless Windsor invests heavily in
the project,a large complex there is highly unlikely.
Q: Outside of Triple Crown Sports, are there other groups that would use the diamond complex?
A: There are a number of potential user groups identified as a result of the study. The other users are discussed in the report.HSP believes that the
outdoor complex would be well utilized for tournaments and during weekdays, regardless if Triple Crown is involved in producing events.
34
Recommendations –
Scenario 1-A
Executive Summary
1.Main Entry Lobby
2.Gymnasium
3.Seating/Viewing Areas
4.Meeting Rooms
5.Food Service
6.Lockers (4)
7.Offices
8.Restrooms
9.Storage
10.MEP
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
910
The adjacent figure,prepared by Perkins +Will,shows a concept
layout for the recommended Scenario 1-A project,which includes
eight regulation basketball courts (convertible to 16 volleyball
courts).This concept includes all support components
recommended by HSP for this scenario.Please note that this
drawing is strictly conceptual at this time.There are advantages
and disadvantages to separating the courts into two distinct event
areas,as will be described later in this document.
35
Cost –Recommended Scenario 1-A
The following data,prepared by Perkins +Will,details the expected project costs for the recommended Scenario 1–A project shown on the
previous slide.Perkins +Will projects the 90,000-square foot complex to cost $27.85 million including site development and non-construction
costs.The site area required for the indoor complex would range from 15-20 acres depending on specific site features and the final layout.
Building Space Area Total Cost ($) *
Lounge/Lobby Spaces 4,200 $1,571,200
Locker Rooms/Team Rooms 4,250 $1,523,200
Administrative Staff Areas 1,488 $546,560
Building Support,Mechanical, Maintenance 1,175 $332,800
Gymnasium 67,914 $18,255,283
Meeting/Multipurpose Rooms 2,750 $985,600
Concession/Food Service Area 3,125 $1,072,000
Family Entertainment Center (optional)5,000 $1,792,000
Site Development $2,844,173
Total Projected Cost for Secondary Recommendation $27,850,817
*Total Cost includes construction and soft costs at a 28%multiplier for design fees,contingency,equipment,other project expenses
Executive Summary
36
Recommendations –
Scenario 1-B
Executive Summary
1.Main Entry Lobby
2.Gymnasium
3.Seating/Viewing Areas
4.Meeting Rooms
5.Food Service
6.Lockers (4)
7.Offices
8.Restrooms
9.Storage
10.MEP
11.Indoor Turf Field
1
2
3
3
4
11
6
7
8
910
5
Indoor Synthetic Turf :HSP’s analysis determined that the lack of
available indoor turf space,combined with harsh weather
conditions the throughout the winter months and lack of indoor
training space,suggests an opportunity for a multipurpose field
component in a new indoor facility.The primary turf opportunity
lies with practices and training for local sports organizations during
the offseason.A FIFA-regulation synthetic turf multipurpose field
that features drop-down dividers (allowing the complex to offer
four separate fields)would also have the ability to host certain
indoor soccer,baseball/softball,lacrosse,and other flat-floor
events throughout the offseason.Due to the significant additional
cost required to develop a this type of facility,HSP conducted a
second scenario that includes all base-scenario 1-A
recommendations with an attached multipurpose field.This is
shown in the adjacent figure.
37
Cost –Scenario 1-B
The following data,prepared by Perkins +Will,details the expected project costs for the recommended Scenario 1-B project shown on the
previous slide.Perkins +Will projects the 188,000-square foot complex to cost $53.34 million including site development and non-construction
costs.The site area required for the indoor complex would range from 25-30 acres depending on specific site features and the final layout.
Executive Summary
Building Space Area Total Cost ($) *
Lounge/Lobby Spaces 4,200 $1,571,200
Locker Rooms/Team Rooms 4,250 $1,523,200
Administrative Staff Areas 1,488 $546,560
Building Support,Mechanical, Maintenance 1,175 $332,800
Gymnasium 67,914 $18,255,283
Turf Fieldhouse 97,900 $23,809,280
Meeting/Multipurpose Rooms 2,750 $985,600
Concession/Food Service Area 3,125 $1,072,000
Family Entertainment Center (optional)5,000 $1,792,000
Site Development (additional costs for expanded project)$4,527,757
Total Projected Cost for Secondary Recommendation 187,802 $53,343,681
38
The outdoor Scenario 2 recommendation,prepared by Perkins +Will,
represents a concept layout for a roughly 80 acre site including the following:
•16 synthetic turf baseball diamonds arranged in (4)four-plex clusters.
•8 synthetic fields would be full-sized (400’)for adult,high school and
collegiate league use
•8 synthetic turf fields would be youth sized (300’)for ages up to 13 years.
•The fencing is arranged to allow for multipurpose fields to be striped in the
outfield of each diamond.
The complex includes parking for at least 450 vehicles,paving,site circulation,
viewing and gathering plazas,and area for site maintenance,drainage and
detention.
Recommendation –
Scenario 2
Executive Summary
Site area requirement:
4 baseball diamond 4-plexes with circulation and practice areas 36.0 acres
Parking for approximately 450 cars 4.0 acres
Multiply developed area by roughly 2.00 for buffers,paving,detention,etc.40.0 acres
Total estimated Site area required for Baseball/MP Fields Complex 80.0-90.0 acres
39
Recommendation –
Scenario 2 Cost
The following data,prepared by Perkins +Will,details the expected project costs for the recommended Scenario 2 project shown on the
previous slide.Perkins +Will projects the 80 acre complex to cost $27 million including site development and non-construction costs.
Project category Total Cost ($)
Baseball Fields Development $16,758,840
Fields, field lighting, lawn areas, restroom & concession buildings, dugouts, seating
Parking and Driveways $2,468,000
Parking lots, driveways,specialty paving, sidewalks, signage
General Site Development $1,465,070
Grass, landscaping, trees, fencing,furnishings, enclosures, etc.
Site Lighting $135,000
Lighting for parking lots, driveways, pedestrian
Development Costs (water taps, utility development fees, reports, submittals)$750,000
Non-construction costs (design & engineering fees, contingencies,equipment)$5,257,728
Total Projected Cost for Primary Recommendation $26,971,138
Executive Summary
40
Summary of Scenarios
Executive Summary
The adjacent tables compares the cost,
performance,and projected impact of the three
sports complex development scenarios.While
Scenario 1-B (with an attached synthetic turf
multipurpose field)will accommodated excess
demand generated by local groups and teams
for offseason practice and training,the
incremental benefit to the community as a
result of net new visitation and spending is
minimal compared to scenario 1-A.Scenario 2
generates the greatest impact of the three
facilities,but the impact is limited due to the
existing hotel demand in the summer months
in Fort Collins.Conversely,indoor complexes
generate the majority of their impact and room
nights throughout the winter months,allowing
Fort Collins to capture the majority of the
impact driven by the facility.
Fort Collins - Summary of Scenarios
Scenario 1-A (Indoor Courts)
Scenario 1-B (Courts with
Indoor Multipurpose)Scenario 2 (Outdoor Diamonds)
Facility Size 90,000 SF 188,000 SF 80-90 acres
Projected Cost $27.9 million $53.3 million $27.0 million
# of Annual Events (Stabilized)90 101 39
Annual Event Attendance (Stabilized)76,400 83,600 131,700
Net Operating Income (Loss) - Year 5 -$111,000 -$92,000 -$255,000
Total Annual Room Nights Generated (Year 5)12,259 13,713 24,573
Net New Room Nights Captured in Fort Collins 11,646 13,028 13,269
Net New Spending (20 years)$138,849,000 $154,042,000 $201,908,000
FTE Jobs Supported 117 133 151
New Taxes Collected (20 years)$3,860,000 $4,297,000 $5,213,000
Source: Hunden Strategic Partners
1
Fort Collins Sports Facility: Market and Feasibility Analysis Report
Presenters: Marc Rademacher, Bob Adams, Mike Calhoon
Background
•Staff was requested by Council to
conduct a feasibility and impact
analysis for the development of a
multi-use sports facility within city limits.
•Impact and feasibility study was funded
during the 2017/18 Budgeting for
Outcomes (BFO) process.
•Hunden Strategic Partners (HSP),
including staff at Perkins + Will, was
hired through a competitive RFP
process in 2018.
2
Questions for Council
•Would Fort Collins benefit from the
addition of a multi-use sports facility
of some kind?
•Does Council want to pursue
this further?
3
Impact and Feasibility Study
•Hunden Strategic Partners conducted comprehensive analysis
around the development of a multi-use facility within city limits.
•The provided executive summary addresses the following questions:
•Is there a profitable market opportunity for a new
indoor/outdoor sports complex development in Fort Collins?
•What are the conclusions and recommendations based on the
overall market analysis?
•What are the cost scenarios and site options to consider?
4
Executive Summary Highlights
•Significant opportunity exists for a new,
multi-use sports complex in Fort Collins.
•Facility goals:
•Accommodate local demand
AND/OR
•Drive sports tourism to the city
5
Executive Summary Highlights
•There is a lack of high-quality, up-to-date, indoor facilities
•Presents challenges for area clubs
•No where for athletes to train/practice during cold/wet months
•Flexible indoor court complex could help create new
local/regional opportunities
•Accommodate other activities such as pickleball, wrestling,
robotics and indoor drones in addition to traditional sports
6
Executive Summary Highlights
•High demand exists for indoor,
synthetic turf training spaces
•Baseball, softball and soccer
organizations would benefit
•Indoor multi-purpose space
would serve local needs, but
generate minimal positive
economic impact
7
Facility Goals and Desired Outcomes
Goals may include:
Indoor Complex:
•Accommodating local needs and
continued growth
•Introducing new sports and
opportunities to the area
8
Outdoor Complex:
•Hosting regional/national events
•Driving sports tourism and
revenue
OR
Scenario 1-A Indoor Facility Concept
Concept 1-A Includes:
•Eight indoor regulation basketball courts
(convertible to 16 volleyball courts)
•Lobby
•Gymnasium
•Meeting Rooms
•Food Service
•Lockers
•Restrooms
•Mechanical, electrical & plumbing
9
Scenario 1-A: Project Costs
Building Space Area (Sq. Ft)Total Cost
Gymnasium 67,914 $18,255,283
Lounge/Lobby Spaces 4,200 $1,571,200
Locker Rooms/Team Rooms 4,250 $1,523,200
Concession/Food Services Area 3,125 $1,072,000
Meeting/Multipurpose Rooms 2,750 $985,600
Administrative Staff Areas 1,488 $546,560
Building Support, Mechanical, Maintenance 1,175 $332,800
Site Development $2,844,173
Family Entertainment Center (Optional)5,000 $1,792,000
Total Projected Cost $27,850,817
10
Scenario 1-B Indoor Facility Concept
Concept 1-B Includes:
•Indoor synthetic turf field
•Gymnasium
•Seating/Viewing Area
•Lobby
•Meeting Rooms
•Food Service
•Lockers
•Offices
•Restrooms
•Mechanical, electrical & plumbing
11
Scenario 1-B: Project Costs
Building Space Area (Sq. Ft)Total Cost
Turf Fieldhouse 97,900 $23,809,280
Gymnasium 67,914 $18,255,283
Family Entertainment Center (Optional)5,000 $1,792,000
Lounge/Lobby Spaces 4,200 $1,571,200
Locker Rooms/Team Rooms 4,250 $1,523,200
Concession/Food Services Area 3,125 $1,072,000
Meeting/Multipurpose Rooms 2,750 $985,600
Administrative Staff Areas 1,488 $546,560
Building Support, Mechanical, Maintenance 1,175 $332,800
Site Development $2,844,173
Family Entertainment Center (Optional)5,000 $1,792,000
Total Projected Cost $53,343,681
12
Scenario 2 Outdoor Facility Concept
Concept 2 Includes:
•16 synthetic turf baseball fields
•Parking areas
•Paving
•Site circulation
•Viewing and gathering plazas
13
Scenario 2: Project Costs
Building Space Total Cost
Baseball Fields Development $16,758,840
Non-construction costs $5,257,728
Parking and Driveways $2,468,000
General Site Development $1,465,070
Development Costs $750,000
Site Lighting $135,000
Total Projected Cost $26,971,138
14
Summary of Scenarios*
Scenario 1-A
(Indoor Courts)
Scenario 1-B
(Courts with
Indoor Turf)
Scenario 2
(Outdoor
Diamonds
Facility Size 90,000 Sq. Ft.188,000 Sq. Ft.80-90 Acres
Projected Cost $27.9 million $53.3 million $27 million
15
*Additional data available on page X of summary document.
Next Steps
•There is opportunity in Fort Collins
to benefit from a multi-use sports
complex of some kind
•City leadership will need to outline
goals and desired outcomes to
guide next steps
16
Questions for Council
•Would Fort Collins benefit from the
addition of a multi-use sports facility
of some kind?
•Does Council want to pursue
this further?
17
18
Fort Collins Sports Facility: Market and Feasibility Analysis Report
Presenters: Marc Rademacher, Bob Adams, Mike Calhoon
Potential Locations
19
Potential Locations
20
Site Location Scenario Fit
Mountain Vista Drive and Summitview Drive 1 and 2
Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road 1 and 2
East Vine Drive and West 1-25 Frontage
Road
1 and 2
East Mulberry Street and Greenfield Court 1 and 2 (no future expansion)
East I-25 Frontage Road and East Prospect
Road
1 and 2 (no future expansion)
East 1-25 Frontage Road, south of Mountain
Vista Drive
1 and 2 (no future expansion)
Potential Locations
21
Site Location Scenario Fit
East 1-25, south of East Vine Drive 1
East 1-25 Frontage Road at Mulberry and
Cloverleaf Way
1
East 1-25 Frontage Road, north of East Vine
Drive
1