HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 05/02/2024 -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 Hybrid Meeting
May 2, 2024
4:00 - 6:00 pm
CIC Room
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the April 4, 2024, Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Appropriation for Compliance with HB21-1110 R. Venkatesh
Presentation: 15 mins.
Discussion: 15 mins.
2.TCEF Reimbursement with a Metro District M. Virata
Presentation: 15 mins. M. Martinez
Discussion: 15 mins.
Page 1 of 70
Council Finance Committee
2024 Agenda Planning Calendar
Revised 4/22/24 ts
May 2nd 2024
Appropriation for compliance with HB21-1110 30 min R.Venkatesh
TCEF Reimbursement with a Metro District 30 mins M.Virata
M.Martinez
June 6th 2024
Water Supply Requirements, Excess Water Use Surcharges,
and Nonresidential Allotments 45 mins J.Dial
Civic Center Master Plan – Municipal Court Facility Options 45 mins D.Maxwell
T.Ochsner
CCIP Project List Update 30 mins G.Sawyer
T. Storin
July 3rd 2024
General Fund Admin Charge to Other Funds 30 mins L.Pollack
August 1st 2024
Unscheduled Topics
September – Annual Adjustment Ordinance – Lawrence Pollack
Page 2 of 70
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
CIC Room / Zoom
April 4, 2024
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Council Attendees: Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson, Mayor Jeni Arndt
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Travis Storin, Tyler Marr, Ginny Sawyer, Teresa Roche,
Kelley Vodden, Chris Martinez, Jennifer Poznanovic, Lawrence Pollack,
Trevor Nash, Renee Reeves, Monica Martinez, Brian Tholl, Glenn Pease,
Terri Runyan, Victoria Shaw, Dave Lenz, Joe Wimmer, Zack Mozer,
Nina Bodenhamer, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
NOTE: Staff follow-up included on the last page of draft minutes.
Approval of minutes from March 20th, 2024, Council Finance Committee Meeting.
Kelly Ohlson moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Emily Francis seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson.
A.2025-2026 Budget Process Review
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue Manager
Chris Martinez, FP&A Manager
Kelley Vodden, Compensation, Benefits and Wellbeing Director
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION (a short title)
2024 BFO Assumptions for funding availability, expense pressures, salary adjustments, and changes to benefits
costs in the 2025-26 Budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (a brief paragraph or two that succinctly summarizes important points that are covered
in more detail in the body of the AIS.)
Page 3 of 70
The City will again use the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process to prepare the City Manager’s
Recommended 2025-26 Biennial Budget. Key assumptions are established early in the process and reviewed
with the Council Finance Committee.
1. Funding Sources: The sales and use tax forecast is an important revenue stream necessary to support
ongoing costs. General Fund sales and use tax is allocated across all seven Outcomes, while the voter
approved dedicated tax forecasts are allocated to specific Outcomes where applicable Offers can utilize that
funding, per ballot language requirements. Likewise, in the enterprise funds, utility rate increases are
necessary to address inflationary costs, infrastructure replacement needs, and maintain service delivery.
Available reserves can also be used to fund offers, typically for one-time types of expenses.
2. Expense Pressures are numerous, including the ongoing impacts of significant inflation over the past couple
years. Further, given natural financial constraints, there are challenges to taking care of existing City assets
versus investments in new programs and services that could benefit the community.
3. Salary and Benefits: The 2025-26 Budget includes a preliminary 3.5% average salary pool increase for both
2025 and 2026, which will be reflected in offers. Employee benefit cost changes have also been entered into
the City’s budgeting software and are used to calculate total employee compensation for 2025-26.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions do Committee members have about the assumptions for the 2025-26 Biennial Budget?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
All background information is contained in the attachments and will be discussed in detail during
the meeting.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Page 4 of 70
Kelly Ohlson; page 3 Preliminary Unaudited Results (see above)
198% is it all Federal Frants?
Follow up - overbudget by $17.5M
Lawrence Pollack; two lines up $10M over
Travis Storin; transportation - capital expansion – TCEF – street oversizing fee
Payments in lieu of development
Short of $400K hourly fees for parking garage $17.5M
Investment portfolio accounting rules require us to market value.
As interest rates went up last year, it looks that way on paper.
Page 5 of 70
Sales Tax History (see slide #5 above)
The above chart shows sales tax history over time. The dark blue bars represent either the KFCG or 2050
dedicated taxes. The first large jump in the sales tax growth line is the addition of KFCG, the second is the
pandemic, and the third is the addition of the 2050 tax.
The 2024 forecast is based on 12 months of the 2050 tax to more accurately project 2025 and 2026. However,
collections for 2050 started in February of 2024. This is because tax due in February is for economic activity
that occurred in January. 12 months of the 2050 tax will still be recognized in 2024 as revenue will be accrued
back to the month in which the tax activity occurred.
Staff recommends 3% growth in 2025 and 2026. Due to coming in under budget in 2023 for sales tax, staff is
currently forecasting 2.9% growth for 2024. However, 3.9% growth is needed over 2023 actuals to reach the
2024 budget.
Page 6 of 70
For use tax, staff recommends $25M for 2025 and $25M for 2026. 2024 is expected to be in line with recent year
actuals and staff is currently forecasting $23M in 2024 (budget is $20M). Flat growth in 2025 and 2026 is expected
based on the updated 2024 forecast.
For property tax, staff is recommending 1% growth in 2025 and 2% growth in 2026. The recommendation is based on
preliminary 2024 valuations and discussions with the Assessor’s Office. The fluctuations in growth rate are based on
the two-year valuation cycles. Given the significant growth between 2021 and 2023, flat growth is expected over the
next two years with new construction being the only anticipated change (subject to change based on any legislative
action).
Page 7 of 70
Personnel & Benefits
BENEFITS – Chris Martinez
We have a very healthy balance in reserves.
Contribution Summary (see below)
Page 8 of 70
Medical / Dental PEPM History (see above)
Step ladder approach to increases - before 2016 we have very low increases and had very
positive plan experience so we felt the need to keep rates low which had a boomerang effect in 2017 and
2018. In 2019, when the pandemic hit, we felt the need to help both the city and the organization, so we kept
medical and dental increases at 0%.
Mayor Arndt; is that a lag as the pandemic was in 2020?
Chris Martinez; we started seeing it then – and still had some lingering effects from the overshot in 2017 and
2018. You see the negative 10.1% in 2020. At the direction of the CFO at the time, we leaned into benefit
reserves to offset some general fund revenues that were not coming in to cover expenses.
Travis Storin; the negative 10.1% was actual experience in clinical utilization as people couldn’t get in during
pandemic. We were working hard to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic with the premium strategy.
Chris Martinez; we used reserves which had an adverse effect - post pandemic, people were healthier – we
were able to extend that out in 2021. In 2022, our consultants recommended a 7% increase because they saw
the medical and dentals fields trying to recoup lost revenues from the pandemic. We applied a 7% increase
and leaned on reserves 2022 and 2023 to help us keep our rates at bay. The organization has a
Really good plan performance so we kept rates at 2% and 4.5%. Now history repeats itself, we worked with
Hub International, our benefit consultant to project out all costs for medical and dental and prescription
coverage out for 5 years to see what ranges we should be adopting now to avoid the 15 - 18% increases.
We landed on a 7%. What we mean by the step ladder is that every year we are not increasing by 8 –
8.5% we are falling behind. We are strategically using our reserves while still increasing our rates so
Page 9 of 70
we can avoid that pendulum. We want to keep things in a steady state, so we don’t fall in that trap again.
Strategically burning some reserves but still keeping reserves in a healthy state with a buffer in there in case
we were to have a bad year.
Benefit rate recommendation slide #17 (see above)
Emily Francis; I thought we weren’t participating in the family program.
Kelley Vodden; we discovered that we had an opportunity to take advantage of the family program through
the state for non-benefit eligible employees. There was a lot of fine tuning before the program went live. We
were able, as an opted-out employer to choose to support employees who wanted to opt in voluntarily. In lieu
of having to opt in and pay for the entire workforce, we pay their contribution individually on their benefits, so
it is no cost to our non-benefited employees to participate in the state program.
Kelly Ohlson; I support the balance of responsibility to staff and to tax and rate payers which is a complicated
juggling act. Outside of utilities transfers, it is our biggest expenditure.
Chris Martinez; benefits represent $44M of city’s budget.
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; I would like to request a general breakdown of dental /medical / prescription /
Page 10 of 70
Salaries / retirement in real dollars and percentages so we can get a contextual feel to help when we make
decisions.
Benefit Rate Recommendations (see slide 17 above)
For 2025 and 2026, we are kicking in 7% and employees are getting a 5.5% increase to catch up to where we
need to be. Annual increases 7-8.5% for the employer. We are not deciding what the employee pays now
since this is a 2-year budget.
Chris Martinez; this is to come in subsequent years to avoid the boomerang we felt in 2017.
This might be helpful for context – in 2020 – negative 10.1% to the city side – that is the reason the city is
having to pay more back because we didn’t take that negative to employees – trying to make that up. We are
managing to a 70/30 split - when we take in total costs (premiums and out of pocket) we are currently at a
72/28 split. The 70/30 is a legacy number and an industry standard plus there is collective bargaining for PFA
and Police – there are statutes we must follow. Our employees should not be paying more than 30% of the
cost share of their medical and dental.
PFA and Police do pay in the benefit plans. I believe there is language in their plans for single and family that
we have to be in compliance with – their total costs must be no more than 30% of the total plan costs. On the
single side, we are in compliance, however, on the family side we are running very close at 29.5% for Police
and PFA.
Travis Storin; this is a lot of predictive work since we are self-funded and it is based on how much people
actually utilize medical services. That 70/30 can be thrown out of balance if we see a big spike in physician
visits, prescriptions, etc.
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; Could we look at peer communities data on benefits?
Chris Martinez; we can and we have had that conversation with Hub International. It is hard to get
apples to apples comparisons because you would have to have self-insured funds that have the same plan,
mechanisms and co pays. It is rather difficult to get a pure apples to apples comparison so we look at it more
in a percentage frame. What percentage of their plan is medical, do they pay on co-pays for pharmaceuticals
and for specialty drugs. We look at it more in that regard, but we do monitor it.
Kelly Ohlson; great to know that you do monitor. We want to be a really good employer but not over
the top.
Chris Martinez; we are not Cadillac. We did make an adjustment to our specialty pharmaceuticals because the
plan previously allowed for $0 deductible for super expensive drugs when there was a generic available which
was not fiscally prudent. What is the industry standard? What co-pay would be standard? This process
educates the consumer as well regarding available lower cost alternatives.
Page 11 of 70
Slide #19 (see above) reflects the employer side of the calculation.
Breakdown of Medical for 2025
$30M Medical & Pharmaceuticals
$2.1M Dental
$2.8M For Stop Loss
Balance is Wellness, City Care and admin, life insurance.
$5M Not a city expense – this is a pass through - employees paying for voluntary life insurance,
daycare reimbursement health savings accounts, Aflac, which are not a city expense - we just
take them through our books.
$44M TOTAL
ACTION ITEM:
Chris to provide a more detailed breakdown of the above.
Kelly DiMartino; follow up to Emily Francis’ question earlier regarding the state family program. We had to
opt-out but we made a commitment to Council to bring an alternative as a public council action.
Page 12 of 70
COMPENSATION – Kelley Vodden
Current Compensation Assumptions (see slide above)
Deeper dive with Q2 data later this summer – look at external data, pay equity study, cost of living,
retention. We do this work every year in advance of compensation planning.
Mayor Arndt; what determines a step employee versus a range employee?
Kelly Vodden; utilities is an example of step positions as they are required to reach a certain level of
skill to advance to the next step / level. Open range does not have that requirement.
Kelly DiMartino; it is really based on how the market attaches the position. Most of our Police
positions are almost all step positions because that is how the industry benchmarks those positions.
We have a few areas right now as that market is changing are looking at revisiting that and change to
open positions.
Kelley Vodden; we also have areas such as Parks who are curious and looking at using stepped
positions as well.
Page 13 of 70
Kelly Ohlson; referenced the Current Compensation Assumptions (see slide on previous page)
Now you are saying that the 3.5% may go up to 4.25%. I just want to make sure I understand.
Kelley Vodden; the reason is twofold, we didn’t have final 2023 data published to do our typical full
analysis so we looked a lot at projections and trends to determine what our comfort level was and if
there was any movement this year so we would have room to respond and continue to be
competitive. You will notice that for 2024, we have a salary budget of 5% in total. Merit takes 4.5%
exclusively and .5% is for any off cycle talent movements.
Kelly Ohlson; so, we can look forward to seeing something between 3.5% - 4.25% in the final
document.
Travis Storin; I wouldn’t set that 4.25% in stone as this is best guess territory and we get the market
data in earnest late this spring. So, July is when we will start to develop the final recommendation to
Council.
Kelly Ohlson; 2.5% pay range movement at the bottom of the slide – don’t you add that too?
Kelley Vodden; pay range movement - recommendation for movement.
We move our pay ranges in our open pay plan 2.5% based on what the market is driving.
Our min / mid / max pay ranges are all shifting 2.5% for open positions. We don’t compensate our
current employees for that pay range movement.
Kelly Ohlson; for clarification -Council gave a total 5% increases for salaries for 2024 but that wasn’t
7% or 9%.
Travis Storin; the 2.5%, if you think about it being a band for a given job with a minimum of $50K and
maximum of $75K. An employee might be hired anywhere in that $25K range. The 5% budget
applies to their compensation within that range. Every year we evaluate the pay plan and those
boundaries of $50K and $75K is what moves by 1.5%. No impact to the employee’s pay, but the
market is moving –
ACTION ITEM:
Kelley will provide something more illustrative per request from Kelly Ohlson.
A one pager illustration together for the full Council for understanding of the percentages.
Kelly DiMartino; recent changes have added a little confusion, but I believe it is for a very good
reason.
The pay range movement, we used to do cost of living adjustments. As the pay ranges moved, so did
the salaries. This is a challenging thing for the organization to understand, because their pay range is
moving which means the market is moving but we don’t automatically adjust their pay so they may
feel like they are falling behind. What we have said is that within the merit increase allocation, that
part of that factors in how the range is moving and performance along with a variety of things.
Page 14 of 70
The reason there is a difference between 5% and the 4.5% and this is new. Historically in the
organization, we have allocated merit increases for a two-year budget - there is no way we can
always get it right as people move and positions are reallocated. We never had money allocated for
that, we always took it out of underspend. So, budget after budget, we would start with a chronic
deficit because of personnel moves that happened. Last cycle, our budget lead team said we have to
change this. So, we are now saying, here is your total salary budget. A part of that we are always
going to set aside to account for these exceptions and things that happen over the course of the two-
year budget and we are doing it with salary dollars not underspend.
Kelly Ohlson; I have had more confidence in city organization around these things in the last 5 years
than every before. We try to be transparent and to look out for rate payers, taxpayers, and our
employees.
Lawerence Pollack; wrapping up with a review of Key 2024 BFO Dates (see slide below)
First Reading would be on Election Day. I understand ELT was discussing a possible new date for that
meeting. The budget has to be adopted by November 30th. We may need to choose a different day
to meet that week as we don’t have meetings on election day. Maybe Thursday or Monday
Page 15 of 70
B. EPIC Home Loan Bank Renewal
Brian Tholl, Sr. Manager Mechanical Engineering
Glenn Pease, Mechanical Engineer II
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Renewal of Epic Homes Loan Program Third-Party Capital Agreements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council Finance regarding the capital sources for Utilities on-bill loan
financing component, Epic Homes Loan, and to seek support for presenting US Bank and Vectra Bank capital
agreement renewals to the Electric Utility Enterprise Board for approval. The blended public and private
capital strategy of Epic Loans supports the Our Climate Future plan and the council priority of reducing climate
pollution and air pollution through electrification.
The existing US Bank agreement expires on May 31, 2024, and staff is proposing to renew the Vectra Bank
agreement in parallel to reduce administrative efforts and to continue success with program participation.
Staff recommend renewal of the proposed US Bank and Vectra Bank capital agreements as a key component
of the ongoing implementation of Epic Homes Loan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the Epic Homes Loan program?
• Does the Committee support bringing the proposed third-party capital agreements to the Electric Utility
Enterprise Board for approval?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Epic Homes
Epic Homes is a comprehensive program to help Fort Collins Utilities customers achieve more efficient,
comfortable, and healthy home living environments for homeowners and renters alike. The program
encompasses various offerings, including:
• Discounted home energy assessments
• Equipment rebates on home upgrades and renewable energy projects supporting the Our Climate Future
goals
• Participating contractors
• Quality assurance
• Attractive on-bill financing options (Epic Homes Loans)
• Certificates that document energy improvements
In October 2018, Fort Collins became a winner of the 2018 Bloomberg Mayors Challenge and the associated
$1M prize. The 2018 Bloomberg Mayors Challenge involved over 300 cities proposing ideas to address
important issues in their community. The City’s proposal was selected as a winner for its innovative approach
to providing health and equity benefits to residents, specifically for low-to-moderate income renters, by
improving the energy efficiency of homes. Residential property owners can take advantage of Epic Homes’
easy, streamlined steps to make their homes more comfortable, healthy, and efficient. Partnering with
Colorado State University, Fort Collins also established a research study which links the health and well-being
indicators of improved indoor environmental quality from efficiency upgrades.
Page 16 of 70
Epic Homes provides non-energy benefits in addition to efficiency, such as increased comfort, health, and
safety.
Epic Homes Loan
Epic Homes Loan is Fort Collins’ Utilities on-bill finance program. It is a component of the program portfolio
which supports community priorities for energy efficiency, renewables, electrification, reduced greenhouse
gas emissions, and increased equity and well-being for residents. Providing a simple, low-cost financial tool
with Epic Homes Loan helps to meet these objectives by helping property owners undertake comprehensive
efficiency improvements. This is especially important for older, less efficient rental properties, which make up
a significant percentage of the City’s housing stock.
Detailed information regarding the Epic Homes Loan program and loan terms can be found at
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/epicloan. The program operates under authorization in Code and the
Financial Officer’s Rules and Regulations, as updated periodically. The program operates with a neutral
balance sheet impact as the obligations to the third-party capital providers are balanced by the obligations of
customers to repay on their monthly utility bills.
The original on-bill finance program started issuing loans in 2013. The program was then paused in 2016 when
the program’s success resulted in reaching the cap of maximum outstanding loan balance funded through
Light & Power reserves ($1.6 million). Building on this success, on-bill finance was revitalized as Epic Homes
Loan in August 2018 during the Champions Phase of the Bloomberg Mayors Challenge. The City was awarded
grants from the Colorado Energy Office ($200,000) and from Bloomberg Philanthropies ($688,350 of the $1M)
for the Epic Loan Program.
One of the workstreams of the Bloomberg Mayors Challenge project was to secure third-party capital as a
strategy to enable scaling of the program. In 2019, the Utilities entered into a $2.5M line of credit loan
agreement with U.S. Bank to provide up to 10-year capital for the Epic Homes Loan Program. This line of credit
termed out in December 2021 and will again in May 2024. In 2020, an additional $2.5M line of credit loan
agreement was signed with Vectra Bank Colorado to provide 15-year capital. This line of credit is nearing its
cap but will not term out until July 2025. A revision to the agreement to increase the limit is being proposed
to sustain the growth of the program. Both of these agreements are structured as lines of credit which are
periodically converted into fixed rate term loans. (See Table 1 for a summary of the program’s capital stack.)
Through 2023, Fort Collins Utilities has serviced 536 on-bill loans to support energy efficiency upgrades in
residential homes and to help property owners overcome financial barriers for making these important
upgrades. The blending of zero cost capital (reserves and grants) with low interest third-party capital is what
enables the program to offer attractive and competitive interest rates and terms for Utilities customers. With
the enterprise fund as the borrower, the program is able to extend the benefits of the high credit rating of the
organization to individual customers. These rates are periodically adjusted based on the blended cost of
capital. See Table 2 for current interest rates and Table 3 for program results.
An ongoing and attractive financing structure to support energy efficiency retrofits is a critical element for
success moving forward. The low rates and scalability of these third-party agreements align with the
programmatic objectives and financial requirements of the City.
Page 17 of 70
Table 1. Summary of Proposed Epic Homes Loan Capital Stack
Capital
Type
Provider Term Rate Amount
Internal &
Grant
Previously authorized
Light & Power reserves
Ongoing 0% $1,600,000
Bloomberg Philanthropies Grant 0% $688,350
Colorado Energy Office –
Grant
Grant 0% $200,000
Internal Subtotal $2,488,350
External
Market
Colorado Energy Office –
Loan
15 year 0% $800,000
U. S. Bank 5 & 10
year
LOC: 1-Month SOFR + 1.05%
Term: COF + 1.65% for 3 yr or
COF + 1.85% for 8yr
(Currently 6.88% and 7.14%)
Up to
$2,500,000
Vectra Bank Colorado 15 year LOC 10y T note + 2.75%
(Currently 6.89 %)
Term 10y T note
(Currently 4.14%)
Up to
$3,500,000
External Subtotal $6,800,000
Total $9,288,350
Table 2. Customer Interest Rates
Loan Term Customer Rate
(Effective June 2023)
3 or 5 years 5.25%
7 or 10 years 5.55%
15 years 5.95%
Note: Customer interest rates are evaluated at a minimum of every 6 months, but usually quarterly when in a
rate changing market
Page 18 of 70
Table 3. Program Results
Number of Loans Issued 536
Number of Outstanding Loans 355
Number of Loans Paid in Full 181
Total Amount Funded $8,994,010
Amount Outstanding $5,634,529
Total Amount of Interest Payments $580,428
Median Loan Amount $14,985
Median Monthly Principal Payment $102.50
Median Monthly Interest Payment $35.84
Third-Party Capital Agreement Summaries:
• The terms of the previous US Bank agreement, concluding on May 31, 2024, include:
• Amount: Up to $2,500,000
• Length: 10-years inclusive of draw period
• Draw period: Up to 2 years, with draw timing and amounts based on program / customer demand.
• Line of Credit rate: 76% of the Prime Rate (6.46% as of March 2024); Rate set at time of loan closing.
• Term rates: Cost of funds (COF) plus 1.65% for 3-year terms, and COF plus 1.85% for 8-year terms.
• Collateral: None
• Pre-pay: The loan may be prepaid, in whole or in part, at the option of the Enterprise with no penalty.
• Repayment position: Senior pledge on customer loan repayments and subordinate position on Electric
Utility revenues, after the more senior pledge held by revenue bondholders.
US Bank agreement, revised terms for extension to conclude in November of 2025:
• Line of Credit rate: 1M Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) + 1.05% for 1 –1.5-year term or 1M SOFR
+ 1.68% for 2-2.5 year term. (Currently 6.36% and 6.99% respectively
• Term rates: Cost of funds (COF) plus 1.65% for 3-year terms, and COF plus 1.85% for 8-year terms.
• Remaining terms carryforward from existing agreement.
The terms of the previous Vectra Bank agreement, which concludes in July 2025, include:
• Amount: Up to $2,500,000
• Length: 15 years inclusive of draw period
• Draw period: Up to 2 years, with draw timing and amounts based on program / customer demand.
• Fixed rate: 10 yr Treasury +2.75%. Yr 1 $1,012,000 at 5.56%; Yr 2 6.908%
• Collateral: None
• Pre-pay: City may pre-pay in whole or in part after 2027 with no penalty. No prepayment is allowed prior
to 2025, and between 2025 and 2027 there is a 1% prepayment fee.
• Repayment position: Senior pledge on customer loan repayments and subordinate position on Electric
Utility revenues, after the more senior pledge held by revenue bondholders.
The proposed revisions to the Vectra Bank agreement will be:
• Amount: from up to $2,500,000 to up to $3,500,000
• Expiry Date: From July 2025 to July 2026
Page 19 of 70
*Vectra Agreement still under internal review at Vectra and is subject to change. US Bank and Vectra
Agreements. Pending review and recommendations from City Attorney's office
Next Steps
• Staff seeks support from Council Finance Committee to proceed with Electric Utility Enterprise Board
consideration of the proposed agreements.
• If supported, staff will finalize agreements and associated term sheets.
• Staff will present the agreements at soonest possible Council meeting.
• Continue with program operations and financial transactions.
• Continue to explore strategies for scaling the program to present to Council as part of seeking expansion
of program limits in Fall of 2024
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the Epic Homes Loan program?
• Does the Committee support bringing the proposed third-party capital agreements to the Electric Utility
Enterprise Board for approval?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Mayor Arndt; I am fully supportive and love the on-bill financing program. This program is a win win.
This is something government is good at. Minimizing risk
Travis Storin; this is one of the most innovative programs we have developed. We are leveraging our
institutional borrowing power and extending it to the consumer level in a way that drives our climate goals.
We have had zero defaults in 10 years which is amazing.
Mayor Arndt; this failed at the state level, but it is a perfect role for government.
Kelly Ohlson; are these ten-year agreements with the banks?
Brian Tholl; they are actually two-year agreements with the enterprise board of the city. The terms are 5 years
with US Bank and a 15-year term with Vector Bank. The debt service and how we are paying the loans back is
over a varied timeline.
Kelly Ohlson; I am so supportive of this program. Do we get good deals on the rates?
Travis Storin; yes, this is a creative instrument and I have to commend our two lending partners on this as they
took some risk here with the idea of a two-year window where we can draw down the funds and extend it to
our customers. At the end of the two years, it locks for a 5-, 10- and 15-year period. It is a variable rate
product for the two-year window and then we lock in a rate for those intervals. It is an innovative and
creative product.
Emily Francis; is the customer rate changing with these new agreements?
Brian Tholl; we don’t anticipate that these new agreements would drive any changes to the customer rate.
Page 20 of 70
Emily Francis; do we still partner with Larimer County to do the assessments?
Brian Tholl; that is a slightly different program – there are two different programs.
Mayor Arndt; there is no assessment just for HVAC, right?
Brian Tholl; due to the nature of emergency replacements, we don’t require an audit in order to be eligible for
incentives such as the loan product itself.
Glenn Pease; you do need to have an assessment which is required for installation for HVAC and solar.
Harris is the company that does the assessments.
Kelly Ohlson; do we help in any way if someone gets a bum contractor?
Brian Tholl; part of the requirements for receiving the incentives, are that our contractors go through a series
of trainings on the requirements for the program which include quality assurance standards for the
Installers. We require photo documentation of the installation as well. We assist by ensuring quality and
providing training. This is a closed program, which means we have a relationship with the contractors as well.
Kelly Ohlson; we don’t’ want residents to be taken advantage of.
Meeting Adjourned
Staff Follow Up from Lawrence Pollack:
Question: What drove the significant increases in 2023 actual revenue in the categories of Transportation Fee
revenue and Utilities Other Miscellaneous revenue?
Response: 2023 Transportation Fee revenue was $4.7M over budget, primarily driven by Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees of $3.5M. Another $765k was from Payments in Lieu of Development and $375k from
hourly garage parking revenue. Utilities Other Miscellaneous revenue was over budget by $1.1M split across
the Utility Funds as follows: Light and Power $512k, Water $39k, Wastewater $31k, Stormwater $52k. and
Customer Service & Administration (CS&A) $512k. Of the two larger amounts, Light and Power’s other
miscellaneous revenue was primarily comprised of $225k in repair charges (one of which was over $100K for
one of the switch cabinets), as well as warehouse revenue of just under $300k for heighted transactional
volumes. For CS&A, the amount over budgeted revenue was mostly driven by late fees of $390k and
reconnect charges of $50k.
Page 21 of 70
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Rupa Venkatesh, Assistant City Manager
Jan Reece, Lead Equal Opportunity Compliance Specialist
Date: May 2, 2024
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Appropriation Request to Develop a Digital Accessibility Roadmap
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request an appropriation of $150,000 in General Funds in order to
work with a consultant to develop a comprehensive and actionable Digital Accessibility
Roadmap. The purpose of this roadmap is to provide a strategy for compliance with both
Colorado and federal laws and regulations pertaining to digital accessibility requirements,
including both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Colorado House Bill 21-1110.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions do Committee members have about this request?
Does the Committee support staff bringing an appropriation ordinance for consideration at the
May 21, 2024 Council meeting?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION (details of item – History, current policy, previous Council
actions, alternatives or options, costs or benefits, considerations leading to staff conclusions, data
and statistics, next steps, etc.)
House Bill 21-1110, Colorado Laws for Persons with Disabilities, as amended by State Bill 23-
244, relates to all technology, hardware, and software, that is both public-facing and internal-
facing. This includes any technology provided by or procured by a government entity that is used
by the public or used by a government entity employee. This technology includes but is not
limited to websites, applications, kiosks, digital signage, documents, video, audio, and third-
party tools.
By July 1, 2024, all local governments need to be compliant. Part of this work includes
conducting an inventory survey, classifying , prioritizing and accessing all applicable
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as defined by the state and goes beyond just
Page 22 of 70
web content. A citywide survey has been completed, which revealed that staff needs additional
expertise to assist in determining the accessibility of the City’s current ICT portfolio. Therefore,
a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to hire a consultant to provide the City with an
assessment and roadmap.
A consultant selected from the RFP process will assist in the following:
• Conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of the City’s digital technology, on-line
services, websites, and third-party software applications to develop a prioritized Digital
Accessibility Roadmap
• Analyze the current usage level for City webpages, software applications, and online
services as part of development of prioritized mitigation strategies and Digital
Accessibility Roadmap
• Provide an evaluation of the time and cost needed to remediate non-compliant content on
both the City’s website and third-party service delivery platforms
• Develop a strategy and action plan to drive compliance with Colorado’s digital
accessibility laws and regulations
Future phases of this work may include ongoing services to ensure future digital content is
compliant with accessibility standards, including but not limited to, processes to validate that
newly created content is in compliance with accessibility regulations; provide training for City
staff to ensure that they have knowledge and skills to maintain compliance; and
recommendations for modifying existing City procurement processes and documents to ensure
that new or renewing third party software and digital services comply with applicable
accessibility regulations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Presentation
Page 23 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
Lead Equal Opportunity Compliance
Specialist
Jan Reece
Assistant City Manager
Rupa Venkatesh
05-02-2024
Council Finance
Committee: Digital
Accessibility
Roadmap
Page 24 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Questions for Council
What questions do Committee members have about this request?
Does the Committee support staff bringing an appropriation ordinance for consideration at the May 21, 2024 Council meeting?
Page 25 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
HB 21-1110
•Passed in July 2021
•Applies to all Information and Communication Technology (ICT) that is both public-facing and internal-facing. It
is not limited to just websites and also includes applications, kiosks, digital signage, etc.
•All local governments must be compliant by July 1, 2024.
Page 26 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Scope of Services
•Conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of the City’s digital technology, on-line services,websites, and
third-party software applications to develop a prioritized Digital Accessibility Roadmap
•Analyze the current usage level for City webpages, software applications, and online services as part of
development of prioritized mitigation strategies and Digital Accessibility Roadmap
•Internal ICT survey complete
•Provide an evaluation of the time and cost needed to remediate non-compliant content on both the City’s
website and third-party service delivery platforms
•Develop a strategy and action plan to drive compliance with Colorado’s digital accessibility laws and
regulations
Page 27 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Estimated Timeline for Consultant
Funding Current RFP will cover:
•Comprehensive Review and Analysis= 160 hours
•Current Asset Usage Analysis= 120 hours
•Remediation Time= 100 hours
•Compliance Strategy and Action Plan Development= 150 hours
Future phases of work may include:
•Ongoing services to ensure future digital content
•Newly created content compliance with accessibility regulations
•Training for City staff to ensure that they have knowledge and skills to maintain compliance
•Recommendations for modifying existing City procurement processes and documents to ensure that new or
renewing third party software and digital services comply with applicable accessibility regulations
Page 28 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Questions for Council
What questions do Committee members have about this request?
Does the Committee support staff bringing an appropriation ordinance for consideration at the May 21, 2024 Council meeting?
Page 29 of 70
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Marc Virata, Monica Martinez, Andy Smith
Date: May 2, 2024
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Waters Edge Second Filing Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Major Reimbursement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Waters Edge developer has constructed street improvements to Turnberry Road, Brightwater
Drive, and Morningstar Way to City standards as part of its development plans and development
agreement for Waters Edge Second Filing and permitted for construction under a Waters Edge
Third Filing Development Construction Permit. Per Section 24-112 of the City Code, the
developer is eligible for reimbursement from Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF)
funds for the oversized, non-local portion for construction. Staff is recommending appropriations
totaling $612,027 from TCEF funds.
City Council approved the consolidated service plan for Waters Edge Metropolitan Districts Nos.
1-5 by adopting Resolution 2018-084 on September 18, 2018. Staff has identified on the review
of this reimbursement request that, as part of the metro district service plan for Waters Edge, the
developer may also be eligible to seek reimbursement from the metro districts for these same
street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. To make clear that the
developer cannot seek reimbursement from the metro districts, the Board of Directors of Districts
1 and 2 adopted a joint resolution affirming that the Districts shall not reimburse the developer,
for costs reimbursed by the City, and the Districts’ accountant shall ensure that the Districts do
not reimburse the developer for costs reimbursed by the City. Additionally, the accountant issued
an affidavit to Districts 1 and 2 affirming that Districts 1-5 have not reimbursed the developer,
and that the districts cannot reimburse the developer for street oversizing costs that the City has
already reimbursed, nor can the districts acquire such improvements. Districts 3, 4, and 5 are
presently declared inactive, and are intended for future development east of Turnberry Road, and
not associated with the street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Do Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the Waters Edge developer for its
construction of Turnberry Road, Brightwater Drive, and Morningstar Way?
• Do Council Finance Committee support TCEF funds being utilized as proposed by Staff,
in light of the joint resolution and accountant’s affidavit documentation from the Waters
Edge Districts 1 and 2 that the metro districts have not, and will not also reimburse for
these same improvements if TCEF funds are used to reimburse the developer?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
TCEF Program
Page 30 of 70
The TCEF Program (formerly Street Oversizing), instituted by ordinance in 1979, was
established to manage the construction of new arterial and collector streets, and is an “Impact
Fee” funded program. The TCEF Program determines and collects impact fees from
development and redevelopment projects. The collection of these impact fees contributes funding
for growth’s related share towards City Capital Projects, including the City’s Active Modes Plan,
and reimburses development for constructing roadway improvements above the local street
access standards. Section 24-112 of the City Code allows for reimbursement to developers for
the construction of collector and arterial streets.
Waters Edge (marketed as Sonders Fort Collins) is a development on the west side of Turnberry
Road between Douglas Road and Country Club Road built in between the Hearthfire, Richard’s
Lake, and Serramonte neighborhoods. This reimbursement is for the Waters Edge developer’s
construction above the local street access standards of Turnberry Road (2-lane arterial),
Brightwater Drive (collector), and Morningstar Way (collector) as part of the Waters Edge
Second Filing and permitted for construction under the Waters Edge Third Filing Development
Construction Permit.
Portions of pavement, landscaping, and sidewalk for all three streets are eligible for
reimbursement and are depicted in the “Waters Edge Second Filing Street Oversizing/Repay
Exhibit A” and itemized between City (TCEF) and local (developer/adjacent parcel owner)
responsibility in Exhibits B “Street Reimbursement Agreement” and B-1 “Street Reimbursement
Agreement City-Developer Cost Breakdown”. Brightwater Drive abuts a City-owned property as
a park site and separately, the developer and City Park Planning and Development are working
on identifying local costs attributable to the City as reimbursement to the developer as City park
street frontage requirements.
Staff has reviewed the documentation provided by the Waters Edge developer and agrees that the
requested reimbursement meets the requirements under City Code Section 24-112 for
appropriation from TCEF funds. There are presently adequate funds in TCEF to reimburse the
developer and Staff recommends reimbursement in the amount of $612,027.
While this reimbursement is considered routine as part of the Code obligations under the TCEF
Program, this request is coming before Council Finance Committee because of the large dollar
amount outside of the typical 2-year budgeting process. TCEF reimbursements to development
were formerly anticipated and appropriated through the 2-year budgeting process. As part of the
process improvements identified first in the 2021 budget, the TCEF Program is now categorizing
developer reimbursements as “Major” and “Minor” reimbursements, with “Major” developer
reimbursements brought to Council individually rather than predicting what reimbursements are
needed on a 2-year basis.
This proposed reimbursement is the third request under this process with Council Finance
Committee having reviewed Northfield in 2022 and Waterfield in 2023. As part of Council
Finance Committee’s input for Northfield, Council Finance Committee supported TCEF
reimbursing Northfield instead of Northfield’s metro districts. Part of that reimbursement request
included Northfield and its metro districts committing that the metro districts would not
reimburse Northfield, meaning that Northfield would not “double dip” and be reimbursed twice
for its costs. (Waterfield does not have a metro district.) Similarly to Northfield, Waters Edge has
metro districts that were established with City Council approving the consolidated service plan
Page 31 of 70
for Waters Edge Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1-5 by adoption of Resolution 2018-084 on
September 18, 2018.
Staff has identified on the review of this reimbursement request that, as part of the metro district
service plan for Waters Edge, the developer may be eligible to seek reimbursement from the
metro districts for these same street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF
funds. The Board of Directors of Districts 1 and 2 adopted a joint resolution affirming that the
Districts shall not reimburse the developer, and the Districts’ accountant shall ensure that the
Districts do not reimburse the developer. Additionally, the accountant issued an affidavit to
Districts 1 and 2 affirming that Districts 1-5 have not reimbursed the developer, and that the
districts cannot reimburse the developer for street oversizing costs that the City has already
reimbursed, nor can the districts acquire such improvements. Resolutions declaring Districts 3, 4,
and 5 as inactive were adopted on December 2019, and are intended for future development
(separate from Sonders Fort Collins) east of Turnberry Road. These districts are not associated
with the Waters Edge Filings and the associated street improvements that the developer is
requesting from TCEF funds. Special district notices declaring the continued inactive status of
Districts 3, 4, and 5 were provided to the City in December 2023.
ATTACHMENTS
1. “Waters Edge Second Filing Street Oversizing/Repay Exhibit A”
2. “Street Reimbursement Agreement Exhibit B”
3. “Street Reimbursement Agreement City-Developer Cost Breakdown Exhibit B-1”
4. “Joint Resolution of the Board of Directors of Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos. 1
& 2 – Prohibiting District Reimbursement”
5. “Board of Directors of Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos. 1 & 2 – Accountant’s
Affidavit”
6. “Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 3 –
Declaring Inactive Special District Status”
7. “Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 4 –
Declaring Inactive Special District Status”
8. “Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 5 –
Declaring Inactive Special District Status”
9. “Notice of Continuing Inactive Status for Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos. 3-5”
Page 32 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
Civil Engineer
Marc Virata
Water Edge Second
Filing Developer
Major Reimbursement
5-02-2024
Monica Martinez
Andy Smith
Manager, Financial Planning & Analysis
Redevelopment Manager
Page 33 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 2Questions for the Council Finance Committee
1.Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle
appropriation of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee fund
reserves to reimburse the Waters Edge Second Filing developer
for its construction of Turnberry Road, Brightwater Drive, and
Morningstar Way?
2.Does Council Finance Committee support TCEF funds being
utilized as proposed by Staff, in light of the joint resolution and
accountant’s affidavit documentation from the Waters Edge
Districts 1 and 2 that the metro districts have not, and will not also
reimburse for these same improvements if TCEF funds are used
to reimburse the developer?
Page 34 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 3TCEF Program
•One time impact fee collected from development and redevelopment to
mitigate impacts to the existing transportation network
•Fee is proportional to anticipated impact
•Used to support growth related infrastructure improvements which add
capacity to the system
•Reimbursement to Developers
•Contributions to transportation capital improvement projects
•Fees cannot be used for improvements which solely benefit an adjacent
development, existing deficiencies, and for maintenance
Page 35 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here How are TCEF Fees used?4
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3 Site 4
•Reimbursement to Developers
for constructing improvements
beyond “local street”
•Contributions to Capital Projects
•Complete Streets
•Transportation Capital
Projects Prioritization Study
•Multimodal Improvements
•Active Modes Plan
•Intersections/Signals
Arterial St.
Local St.
Collector St.
Page 36 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here TCEF Process Change
TCEF Reimbursement Appropriation Process
Since Program Inception through 2020
•Appropriation for reimbursement through standard budgeting process
•Forecast when development projects are entitled and constructed
2021 Budget TCEF Program Update
•“Minor” reimbursements appropriated through 2-year budget process
•“Major” reimbursements instead individually appropriated
Previous Major Reimbursements to Council Finance Committee
•Northfield ($2.1M) – December 2022
•Waterfield ($1.4M) – December 2023
5
Page 37 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 6Waters Edge Vicinity Map
Richard’s Lake
Maple
Hill
Hearthfire
Waters
Edge
Serramonte
Country
Club Reserve
Douglas Road
Tu
r
n
b
e
r
r
y
Ro
a
d
Richard’s Lake Rd.
Mountain Vista Dr.
Country Club Rd.
Page 38 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 7Waters Edge Road Improvements
7
Northfield’s Construction
Suniga Road Improvements Project (2019)
Constructed 2014
Future Construction
Vine & Lemay Improvements (Includes
segment of Suniga Road)
Limits: Redwood Street to Lindenmeier Road
(former Lemay alignment)
Previous reimbursements: road right-of-way
($477K, 2020); box culvert ($361K, 2021)
TCEF Appropriation Request: $2.1M
Waters Edge/Sonders Fort Collins
Tu
r
n
b
e
r
r
y
Ro
a
d
Morningstar Way
Page 39 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 8Waters Edge Road Improvements
Page 40 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 9Waters Edge Morningstar Way
9
Page 41 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 10Waters Edge Brightwater Drive
10
Page 42 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 11Waters Edge Turnberry Road
11
Page 43 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 12Waters Edge Road Improvements
TCEF Appropriation Request: $612,027
Does Council Finance Committee support an
off-cycle appropriation of Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the
Waters Edge Second Filing developer for its
construction of Turnberry Road, Brightwater
Drive, and Morningstar Way?Page 44 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 13Waters Edge Metro Districts 1-5
Waters Edge Metropolitan Districts
•Resolution 2018-084 approved Service
Plan for Waters’ Edge Metropolitan Districts
Nos. 1-5
Page 45 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 14Waters Edge Metro Districts 1-5
Districts:
1
3
4
5
District 2
Page 46 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 15Waters Edge Metro Districts 1-5
Districts:
1
3
4
5
District Status
•Districts 1 & 2 are active
•Districts 3-5 are inactive since December
2019 and reaffirmed to the City as inactive
December 2023
•Districts 3-5 intended to expand into future
development “Inclusion Area” east of
Turnberry Road
District 2
Page 47 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 16Waters Edge Metro Districts 1-5
District 2
Districts:
1 4
3 5
Districts 1 & 2:
•Joint Resolution issued affirming Districts 1 & 2 shall not
reimburse the developer for reimbursements from TCEF
•Districts 1 & 2 Accountant provided affidavit affirming:
•Districts 1-5 have not reimbursed developer
•Districts 1-5 are ineligible to reimburse the
developer for costs reimbursed by TCEF
•Districts 1-5 cannot acquire the improvementsPage 48 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here 17Waters Edge Metro Districts 1-5
District 2
Districts:
1 4
3 5
Does Council Finance Committee support TCEF
funds being utilized as proposed by Staff, in
light of the joint resolution and accountant’s
affidavit documentation from the Waters Edge
Districts 1 and 2 that the metro districts have
not, and will not also reimburse for these same
improvements if TCEF funds are used to
reimburse the developer?
Page 49 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 50 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
THANK YOU!
Marc Virata, Monica Martinez, Andy Smith
mvirata@fcgov.com, momartinez@fcgov.com , asmith@fcgov.com
Page 51 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 52 of 70
Headline Copy Goes Here Service Plan
Service Plan for Waters Edge
21
Page 53 of 70
8'
'
S
A
8
'
'
S
A
8
'
'
S
A
10
'
'
S
A
10
'
'
S
A
8'' SA
W
W
24''W24''W24''W
S
T
E
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
GW
W
W
G
G
24''W
24
28
8
30
4
30
9
45
44
18
518
6
18
4
18
3
18
2
11
9
18
1
18
0
17
9
17
4
17
3
17
2
17
1
17
5
17
8
17
7
30
0
30
1
3
0
2
29
7
29
8
29
9
28
0
2
8
1
28
2
28
3
6
7
8 9
10
22
23
27
2
5
26
28
29
30
31
11
12
13
14
5
28
4
2
8
5
2
8
6
28
7
4
28
9
3
29
0
2
1
29
1
29
2
29
5
29
3
29
4
32
1
29
630
3
30
5
30
6
30
8
59
30
7
58
60
56
57
50
54
55
53
52
48
51
32
4
49
32
9
47
46
16
15
43
19
17
21
37
20
42
41
62
39
38
63 64 65 66 67 68 69
7071727374757677
79
80
81
82 83
84
85
86 87
96 95
94
93
92 91 90 89 88
97
98
99
10
0
10
1
13
3
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
11
0
11
1
11
2
11
3
11
4
11
5
11
6
11
711
8
12
0
13
7
13
8
14
1
14
0
13
9
14
2
14
3
14
4
14
5
14
6
7
15
7
15
8
15
9
15
6
16
0
16
2
16
1
16
3
16
7
16
4
16
5
17
6
16
6
16
9
16
8
17
0
36
35
34
33
32
31
9
31
8
3
1
7
31
6
31
5
3
1
4
31
3
31
0
31
1
31
2
32
0
32
2
32
3
32
8
32
5
32
6
32
7
12
8
12
7
12
6
12
9
13
2
13
0
12
5
12
4
12
312
2
12
1
13
6
13
5 13
4
13
1
23
0
20
0
19
9
19
8
20
2
20
1
23
6
23
7
23
8
23
5
20
3
20
4
20
5
20
6
20
7
20
8
20
9
22
8
22
9
23
2
23
1
23
3
23
4
19
5
19
6
22
6
19
4
19
3
19
2
19
1
19
0
18
9
18
8
18
7
21
8
21
7
21
6
21
5
21
4
21
3
21
2
2
1
1
21
0
22
7
25
3
22
5
22
4
22
3
22
2
22
1
22
0
21
9
25
9
25
8
2
5
7
2
5
6
25
5
25
4
24
9
25
2
25
1
25
0
26
2
24
8
24
7
24
6
24
5
24
3
24
4
26
0
26
1
26
3
26
4
27
1
26
5
26
6
26
7
26
8
26
9
27
0
27
9
27
2
27
3
27
4
27
5
27
6
27
7
27
8
24
2
24
1
24
0
23
9
19
7
BRIGHTWATER
DR
I
V
E
TURNBERRY ROAD (CR 11)
B
R
I
G
H
T
W
A
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
BRIGHTWATER DRIVE
LONGB
O
A
T
W
A
Y
FLEET DRIVE
CR
U
I
S
E
R
L
A
N
E
PARKSIDE DRIVE
MOR
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
W
A
Y
NAVIGATOR WA
Y
N
A
V
I
G
A
T
O
R
W
A
Y
TR
A
N
S
O
M
L
A
N
E
GANGWAY DRIVE
SQ
U
I
B
L
A
N
E
DAYSAILER WAY
OUTRIGGER WAY
SK
I
F
F
L
A
N
E
JE
T
T
Y
L
A
N
E
MI
D
S
H
I
P
W
A
Y
MO
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
W
A
Y
JIB LANE
LATEEN LANE
CO
M
P
A
N
I
O
N
W
A
Y
TURNBERRY ROAD (CR 11)
P
L
A
N
K
L
A
N
E
LL OW
C
I
R
C
L
E
HELMSMAN STREET
PH
A
S
E
I
I
PH
A
S
E
I
I
I
PH
A
S
E
I
C
PH
A
S
E
V
PH
A
S
E
V
PH
A
S
E
I
A
PH
A
S
E
I
V
PH
A
S
E
I
I
I
PH
A
S
E
I
I
PH
A
S
E
I
I
PH
A
S
E
I
C
PH
A
S
E
I
A
C
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
TA
C
K
L
A
N
E
RO
W
I
N
G
L
A
N
E
MO
O
N
R
A
K
E
R
L
A
N
E
DROMO
N
D
L
A
N
E
C
O
R
D
A
G
E
L
A
N
E
TR
U
N
N
E
L
L
A
N
E
PH
A
S
E
I
B
PH
A
S
E
I
B
PHA
S
E
I
B
1
1
2
2
1
3
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
6
6
6
4
14
14
14
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
:
4
,
8
9
1
S
F
AS
P
H
A
L
T
:
1
,
1
4
3
S
Y
4
1313
13
17
16
16
16
17
17 18
18
18
3
3
1
3
6
6
6
15
15
15
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
.
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
N
O
R
T
H
&
S
O
U
T
H
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
D
R
I
V
E
(
W
E
S
T
O
F
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
)
ST
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
S
O
U
T
H
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
D
R
I
V
E
(
W
E
S
T
O
F
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
)
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
N
O
R
T
H
&
S
O
U
T
H
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
D
R
I
V
E
(
W
E
S
T
O
F
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
)
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
W
E
S
T
&
E
A
S
T
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
B
R
I
G
H
T
W
A
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
(
S
O
U
T
H
O
F
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
)
ST
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
W
E
S
T
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
B
R
I
G
H
T
W
A
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
(
S
O
U
T
H
O
F
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
)
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
W
E
S
T
&
E
A
S
T
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
B
R
I
G
H
T
W
A
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
(
S
O
U
T
H
O
F
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
)
(N
O
T
U
S
E
D
)
(N
O
T
U
S
E
D
)
(N
O
T
U
S
E
D
)
(N
O
T
U
S
E
D
)
(N
O
T
U
S
E
D
)
(N
O
T
U
S
E
D
)
ST
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
ST
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
(
B
E
Y
O
N
D
T
H
E
L
O
C
A
L
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
&
R
T
.
T
U
R
N
L
A
N
E
)
ST
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
E
A
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
ST
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
,
E
A
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
NO
T
E
S
.
1)
T
H
I
S
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
D
E
P
I
C
T
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
I
T
E
M
S
A
N
D
A
R
E
A
S
,
A
T
T
R
I
B
U
T
A
B
L
E
T
O
T
H
E
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
D
G
E
W
E
S
T
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
.
P
H
A
S
E
L
I
N
E
S
A
R
E
A
L
S
O
S
H
O
W
N
F
O
R
T
H
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
.
2)
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
I
S
O
W
N
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
,
A
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
S
I
D
E
O
F
B
R
I
G
H
T
W
A
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
A
N
D
A
PO
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
,
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
T
O
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
,
A
R
E
S
H
O
W
N
A
S
R
E
P
A
Y
I
T
E
M
S
/
A
R
E
A
S
O
N
A
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
F
O
R
T
H
E
P
A
R
K
S
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
,
A
S
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
D
G
E
W
E
S
T
H
A
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
T
H
E
E
N
T
I
R
E
ST
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
B
O
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
.
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
T
W
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
A
R
E
A
L
S
O
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
,
A
N
D
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
SH
O
W
N
I
N
T
H
I
S
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
.
3)
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
N
T
H
E
W
E
S
T
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
T
U
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
A
R
E
E
L
I
G
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
.
TU
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
W
A
S
A
L
S
O
O
V
E
R
L
A
I
D
F
O
R
T
H
E
E
N
T
I
R
E
W
I
D
T
H
O
F
T
H
E
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
BO
U
N
D
A
R
Y
T
O
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
O
F
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
D
G
E
W
E
S
T
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
,
H
A
S
A
M
I
D
D
L
E
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
TH
E
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
T
H
A
T
I
S
E
L
I
G
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
R
E
I
M
B
U
R
S
E
M
E
N
T
.
4)
P
L
E
A
S
E
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
H
E
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
T
H
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
F
O
R
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
I
T
E
M
S
/
A
R
E
A
S
.
P
L
E
A
S
E
A
L
S
O
RE
F
E
R
T
O
T
H
E
A
C
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
I
N
G
S
P
R
E
A
D
S
H
E
E
T
W
H
I
C
H
Q
U
A
N
T
I
F
I
E
S
T
H
E
S
E
I
T
E
M
S
/
A
R
E
A
S
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
I
N
G
F
O
R
TH
E
S
E
I
T
E
M
S
,
A
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
C
O
N
N
E
L
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
.
5)
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
,
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
I
N
G
I
S
O
N
L
Y
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
T
O
U
S
E
T
H
E
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
;
TH
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
,
E
V
E
N
F
O
R
T
H
E
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
A
N
D
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
(
D
E
P
T
H
S
)
,
T
H
E
L
O
C
A
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
(
D
E
P
T
H
)
PR
I
C
I
N
G
M
U
S
T
B
E
U
S
E
D
E
V
E
N
F
O
R
T
H
E
S
E
L
A
R
G
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
.
6)
P
L
E
A
S
E
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
,
T
H
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
,
F
O
R
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
I
N
G
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
A
N
D
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
.
TY
P
I
C
A
L
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
5
PKWY
50
'
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
SE
T
B
A
C
K
FE
N
C
E
7'
ES
M
T
UT
I
L
9'
9'
UT
I
L
ES
M
T
11
'
8'
BI
K
E
LN6'
PKWY
8'
6'
BI
K
E
LN
11
'
50
'
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
76
'
R
O
W
5'WALK
11
'
TR
A
V
E
L
PA
R
K
LN
BI
K
E
8'
PA
R
K
8'
BI
K
E
LN
12
'
11
'
TR
A
V
E
L
TR
A
V
E
L
TR
A
V
E
L
8'
8'
LE
F
T
TU
R
N
MI
N
O
R
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
2%
m
i
n
.
2%
m
i
n
.
3%
m
a
x
.
3%
m
a
x
.
5'WALK
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
WH
E
R
E
N
E
E
D
E
D
(M
O
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
W
A
Y
-
W
E
S
T
O
F
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
13
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
0.
5
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
4.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
2'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
5.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
13
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
0.
5
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
4.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
2'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
5.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
20
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
ST
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
(B
R
I
G
H
T
W
A
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
-
S
O
U
T
H
O
F
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
TY
P
I
C
A
L
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
11
48
'
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
12
'
LN
/
BI
K
E
6'
6'
BI
K
E
LN
12
'
12
'
LT
.
TU
R
N
LA
N
E
TU
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
(
C
.
R
.
1
1
)
2%
m
i
n
.
2%
m
i
n
.
3%
m
a
x
.
3%
m
a
x
.
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
CL
IN
T
E
R
I
M
R
O
A
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
PROP ROW
60
'
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
O
W
EXIST ROW
TY
P
I
C
A
L
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
10
40
'
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
(
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
12
'
LN
/
BI
K
E
6'
8'
BI
K
E
LN
12
'
TU
R
N
B
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
(
C
R
1
1
)
2%
m
i
n
.
2%
m
i
n
.
3%
m
a
x
.
3%
m
a
x
.
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
CL
Ut
i
l
Es
m
t
15
'
PKWY10
'
WALK6'
IN
T
E
R
I
M
R
O
A
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
PROP ROW
60
'
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
O
W
24
'
PR
O
P
RO
W
EXIST ROW
ST
A
:
1
9
+
7
3
.
6
3
T
O
2
1
+
6
9
.
2
1
SH
L
D
R
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
Z
O
N
E
/
R
E
D
I
R
E
C
T
(
W
I
D
T
H
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
SH
L
D
R
14
'
RT
TU
R
N
LA
N
E
ST
A
:
2
3
+
1
1
.
8
9
T
O
2
6
+
9
8
.
7
4
EXIST ROW
12
'
PR
O
P
RO
W
EXIST ROW
PKWY10
'
WALK6'
Ut
i
l
Es
m
t
15
'
PROP ROW
VA
R
I
E
S
13
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
1.
5
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
4.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
4'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
5.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
13
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
25
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
(1
2
'
R
T
T
U
R
N
L
A
N
E
+
1
3
'
L
O
C
A
L
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
)
1.
5
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
4.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
4'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
5.
5
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
13
'
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
22
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
ST
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
(1
1
'
E
A
C
H
S
I
D
E
O
F
C
L
,
T
H
E
N
TA
P
E
R
S
A
N
D
V
A
R
I
E
S
AT
N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
S
O
U
T
H
EN
D
S
O
F
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
)
22
'
O
V
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
ST
R
E
E
T
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
(1
1
'
E
A
C
H
S
I
D
E
O
F
C
L
,
T
H
E
N
TA
P
E
R
S
A
N
D
V
A
R
I
E
S
AT
N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
S
O
U
T
H
EN
D
S
O
F
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
)
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
LE
G
E
N
D
.
AS
P
E
N
A
Page 54 of 70
**This exhibit provides repay and street oversizing items/ areas for the Waters Edge West Development. Please refer to the Street Over-
sizing Exhbit, dated December 23, 2022, that correspond to the items/ areas shown below.
PERMANENT PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED FOR: Waters Edge Second Filing
Date: Feb 28,2024
1. Construction
Item Description Unit QTY Unit Price Total KEY NOTE LEGEND #
TURNBERRY ROAD (CR11) EAST SIDE (Reference to Cadd Exhibit)
4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 1,730 29.40$ $50,862.00 18
Fly Ash Stabilization (12" @ 12%)SY 1,730 9.45$ $16,348.50 18
FLY ASH MOBILZATION (Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1,730 1.23$ $2,127.90 18
Sawcut Existing Pavement LF 1,216 3.85$ $4,681.60 17
Remove Existing Pavement SY 1,012 5.25$ $5,313.00 17
Sub Total $79,333.00
TURNBERRY ROAD (CR11) WEST SIDE
4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 1,764 29.40$ $51,861.60 16
Fly Ash Stabilization (12" @ 12%)SY 1,764 9.45$ $16,669.80 16
FLY ASH MOBILZATION (Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1,764 1.23$ $2,169.72 16
Parkway Oversizing SF 4,947 4.00$ $19,788.00 15
6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk SF 1,930 6.00$ $11,580.00 14
Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 1,930 0.73$ $1,408.90 14
Sawcut Existing Pavement LF 1,445 3.85$ $5,563.25 13
Remove Existing Pavement SY 1,229 5.25$ $6,452.25 13
Sub Total $115,493.52
MORNINGSTAR WAY (WEST OF ROUNDABOUT)
4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 1,798 29.40$ $52,861.20 2
FLY ASH STABILIZATION (12" @ 12%)SY 1,798 9.45$ $16,991.10 2
FLY ASH MOBILIZATION ( Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1,798 1.23$ $2,211.54 2
6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk SF 1,182 6.00$ $7,092.00 1
Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 1,182 0.73$ $862.86 1
Parkway Oversizing SF 5,234 4.00$ $20,936.00 3
Sub Total $100,954.70
BRIGHTWATER DRIVE (WEST SIDE)
4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 1,353 29.40$ $39,778.20 5
FLY ASH STABILIZATION (12" @ 12%)SY 1,353 9.45$ $12,785.85 5
FLY ASH MOBILIZATION ( Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1,353 1.23$ $1,664.19 5
6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk SF 867 6.00$ $5,202.00 4
Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 867 0.73$ $632.91 4
Parkway Oversizing SF 2,512 4.00$ $10,048.00 6
Sub Total $70,111.15
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
EXHIBIT B STREET REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
RE
P
A
Y
Page 1
Page 55 of 70
Item Description Unit QTY Unit Price Total KEY NOTE LEGEND #
BRIGHTWATER DRIVE (EAST SIDE, ADJACENT TO CITY PARK)
6" Thick,5' Wide Concrete Sidewalk, including subgrade prep.SF 486 6.00$ $2,916.00 4
Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 486 0.73$ $354.78 4
4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 1,143 29.40$ $33,604.20 5
Fly Ash Stabilization (12" @ 12%)SY 1,143 9.45$ $10,801.35 5
FLY ASH MOBILIZATION ( Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1,143 1.23$ $1,405.89 5
Remove Existing Pavement SY 0 5.25$ $0.00 Area east of CL Existing roadway, along Park
Parkway Oversizing SF 2,002 4.00$ $8,008.00 6
Sub Total $57,090.22
BRIGHTWATER DRIVE (EAST SIDE)
6" Thick,5' Wide Concrete Sidewalk, including subgrade prep.SF 310 6.00$ $1,860.00 4
Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 310 0.73$ $226.30 4
4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 186 29.40$ $5,468.40 5
Fly Ash Stabilization (12" @ 12%)SY 186 9.45$ $1,757.70 5
FLY ASH MOBILIZATION ( Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 186 1.23$ $228.78 5
Remove Existing Pavement (8,795 SY Total for M-Star and Brightwater, less 2096 SY East side by park) SY 2,625 5.25$ $13,781.25 Demo of Ex Asphalt M-Star & Brightwater
Parkway Oversizing SF 1,217 4.00$ $4,868.00 6
Sub Total $28,190.43
MISCELLANEOUS
PVMT MARKING LS 1 37,450.00$ $37,450.00
SIGNING LS 1 4,100.00$ $4,100.00
EROSION CONTROL LS 1 2,902.00$ $2,902.00
MOBILIZATION LS 1 18,684.00$ $18,684.00
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LS 1 4,396.00$ $4,396.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 24,502.00$ $24,502.00
Sub Total $92,034.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $543,207.02
2. Aspen Engineering - Civil Engineers
Item Description Unit QTY Unit Price Total
DESIGN COSTS INCURRED FOR THE PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 58,800.00$ $58,800.00
TOTAL $58,800.00
3. Soil Testing for Roadway Portions
Item Description Unit QTY Unit Price Total
COST OF TESTING MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROADWAY LS 1 6,329.00$ $6,329.00
TOTAL $6,329.00
4. Construction Survey Staking
Item Description Unit QTY Unit Price Total
CONSTRUCTION STAKING FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 3,691.00$ $3,691.00
(Turnberry, Morningstar, Brightwater, Parkside)TOTAL $3,691.00
TOTAL COST OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS $612,027.02
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
I
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
Page 2
Page 56 of 70
Project:WATERS EDGE WEST (EXHIBIT B1)
Developer:Actual Communities, Inc.
Created by:Aspen Engineering
Date:29-Feb-24
Brief Description of Eligible Improvements: Reimbursement request for applicable roadway oversized portions, per DA for Waters Edge West
*Please note that the "adjacent parcel owner" costs are not the actual repay costs for City Parks, as the City of FC requires we reduce the asphalt costs to match the local street section. Repay will be based on the actual costs, by Connell for street sections.
Roadway:Turnberry Road
Item # Description of Item Unit Unit Price Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Total Cost
18 & 16 4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 29.40$ 2,475 3,494 1,812 72,765.00$ 102,723.60$ 53,272.80$ 228,761.40$
18 & 16 Fly Ash Stabilization (12" @ 12%)SY 9.45$ 2,475 3,494 1,812 23,388.75$ 33,018.30$ 17,123.40$ 73,530.45$
18 & 16 FLY ASH MOBILZATION (Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1.23$ 2,475 3,494 1,812 3,044.25$ 4,297.62$ 2,228.76$ 9,570.63$
17 & 13 Sawcut Existing Pavement LF 3.85$ 1,403 2,661 1,216 5,401.55$ 10,244.85$ 4,681.60$ 20,328.00$
17 & 13 Remove Existing Pavement SY 5.25$ 1,432 2,241 1,012 7,518.00$ 11,765.25$ 5,313.00$ 24,596.25$
14 6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk SF 6.00$ 5,792 1,930 - 34,752.00$ 11,580.00$ -$ 46,332.00$
14 Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 0.73$ 5,792 1,930 - 4,228.16$ 1,408.90$ -$ 5,637.06$
15 Parkway Oversizing SF 4.00$ 6,875 4,947 - 27,500.00$ 19,788.00$ -$ 47,288.00$
Roadway Construction Sub-Total 178,597.71$ 194,826.52$ 82,619.56$ 456,043.79$
Roadway:Morningstar Way (West of Roundabout)
Item # Description of Item Unit Unit Price Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Total Cost
2 4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 29.40$ 2,502 1,798 0 73,558.80$ 52,861.20$ -$ 126,420.00$
2 FLY ASH STABILIZATION (12" @ 12%)SY 9.45$ 2,502 1,798 0 23,643.90$ 16,991.10$ -$ 40,635.00$
2 FLY ASH MOBILIZATION ( Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1.23$ 2,502 1,798 0 3,077.46$ 2,211.54$ -$ 5,289.00$
1 6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk SF 6.00$ 7,875 1,182 0 47,250.00$ 7,092.00$ -$ 54,342.00$
1 Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 0.73$ 7,875 1,182 0 5,748.75$ 862.86$ -$ 6,611.61$
3 Parkway Oversizing SF 4.00$ 9,625 5,234 0 38,500.00$ 20,936.00$ -$ 59,436.00$
-$
Roadway Construction Sub-Total 191,778.91$ 100,954.70$ -$ 292,733.61$
Roadway:Brightwater Drive (South of Roundabout)
Item # Description of Item Unit Unit Price Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Total Cost
5 4" HMA/ 6" ABC pavement section, including subgrade prep (27.10+2.30)SY 29.40$ 3,704 2,682 2,600 108,897.60$ 78,850.80$ 76,440.00$ 264,188.40$
5 FLY ASH STABILIZATION (12" @ 12%)SY 9.45$ 3,704 2,682 2,600 35,002.80$ 25,344.90$ 24,570.00$ 84,917.70$
5 FLY ASH MOBILIZATION ( Pro rated to 1.23/SY)SY 1.23$ 3,704 2,682 2,600 4,555.92$ 3,298.86$ 3,198.00$ 11,052.78$
4 6" Thick, 5' wide Concrete Sidewalk, including subgrade prep.SF 6.00$ 6,368 1,663 4,891 38,208.00$ 9,978.00$ 29,346.00$ 77,532.00$
4 Fine Grade Under Sidewalk SF 0.73$ 6,368 1,663 4,891 4,648.64$ 1,213.99$ 3,570.43$ 9,433.06$
6 Parkway Oversizing SF 4.00$ 8,882 5,731 5,450 35,528.00$ 22,924.00$ 21,800.00$ 80,252.00$
Demo Remove Existing Pavement (Old Brightwater accesss drive)SY 5.25$ 3,625 2,625 2,545 19,031.25$ 13,781.25$ 13,361.25$ 46,173.75$
-$ -$
Roadway Construction Sub-Total 245,872.21$ 155,391.80$ 172,285.68$ 573,549.69$
Construction Total 616,248.83$ 451,173.02$ 254,905.24$ 1,322,327.09$
Percentage 46.6%34.1%19.3%100.0%
Soft Costs (based on a proportional split of construction costs)
Item # Description of Item Unit Unit Price Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Developer City
Adjacent Parcel
Owner Total Cost
Construction Surveying -----251,714.00$ 3,691.00$ 6,549.00$ 261,954.00$
Mobilization -----404,018.00$ 18,684.00$ 2,500.00$ 425,202.00$
Construction Management -----84,974.00$ 4,396.00$ 10,630.00$ 100,000.00$
Erosion Control -----116,863.00$ 2,902.00$ 3,071.00$ 122,836.00$
Traffic Control -----34,486.00$ 24,502.00$ 1,512.00$ 60,500.00$
Signage & Striping 72,915.00$ 41,550.00$ 2,935.00$ 117,400.00$
Geotech./Materials Testing -----294,661.00$ 6,329.00$ 7,718.00$ 308,708.00$
Design Engineering -----379,950.00$ 58,800.00$ 11,250.00$ 450,000.00$
Soft Cost Totals 1,639,581.00$ 160,854.00$ 46,165.00$ 1,846,600.00$
Totals:1,639,581.00 612,027.02 301,070.24 3,168,927.09
Quantity Breakdown Cost Breakdown
Quantity Breakdown (Proportional Split) Cost Breakdown (Proportional Split)
Quantity Breakdown Cost Breakdown
Quantity Breakdown Cost Breakdown
Page 57 of 70
1
1983.0007; JZR7HXE2KFXQ-1201763581-151
JOINT RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1 & 2
PROHIBITING DISTRICT REIMBURSEMENT
TO DEVELOPER FOR VARIOUS OVERSIZING IMPROVEMENT COSTS
WHEREAS, Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos. 1 & 2 (the “Districts”) are each a
quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, duly organized
pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-1001(1)(d), C.R.S., the Boards of Directors of the Districts
(together, the “Board”) are authorized to enter into contracts and agreements affecting the affairs
of the Districts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-1001(1)(h) C.R.S., the Board has the management, control,
and supervision of all the business and affairs of the Districts; and
WHEREAS, Waters’ Edge Developments Inc. (the “Developer”) constructed certain
oversized improvements to portions of Brightwater Drive, Morningstar Way, and Turnberry Road,
collector roadways within the Districts’ boundaries (the “Street Oversized Improvements”), and
streets, curb, and sidewalk, around the park located centrally in the Districts (the “Oversized Park
Improvements” and together with the Street Oversized Improvements, the “Oversized
Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer dedicated the Oversized Improvements to the City of Fort
Collins (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer seeks reimbursement from, and/or has been reimbursed by the
City for, certain costs associated with the construction of the Oversized Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks assurances from the Districts that, to the extent that the City
reimburses the Developer for the Oversized Improvements, the Districts shall not reimburse the
Developer for such Oversized Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the District’s accountant has furnished an affidavit stating that the District has
neither accepted costs for reimbursement nor reimbursed costs related to the Oversized
Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS:
1. To the extent the City reimburses the Developer, the Districts shall not reimburse
the Developer for the costs associated with the Oversized Improvements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 447233FC-13A3-4784-AA09-DF60F2639731DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C949CA2-B25A-492E-AB92-2DDBE032380CDocuSign Envelope ID: 661543C3-2404-476A-89F1-8B3BCEADEA9E
Page 58 of 70
2
1983.0007; JZR7HXE2KFXQ-1201763581-151
2. Nothing herein shall prohibit any of the Districts from reimbursing the Developer
for any improvement costs that are eligible for reimbursement under the Districts’ service plan to
the extent such improvement costs are not reimbursed by the City.
3. The Districts’ accountant shall ensure that the Districts do not reimburse the
Developer, or its successors or assigns, for the cost of the Oversized Improvements that have been
reimbursed by the City.
[Signature Page Follows.]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 447233FC-13A3-4784-AA09-DF60F2639731DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C949CA2-B25A-492E-AB92-2DDBE032380CDocuSign Envelope ID: 661543C3-2404-476A-89F1-8B3BCEADEA9E
Page 59 of 70
3
1983.0007; JZR7HXE2KFXQ-1201763581-151
ADOPTED October 18, 2023.
DISTRICTS:
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT NO. 1, a quasi-municipal corporation
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado
By:
Officer of the District
Attest:
By:
DISTRICTS:
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT NO. 2, a quasi-municipal corporation
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado
By:
Officer of the District
Attest:
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA & WALDRON
Attorneys at Law
General Counsel to the District
Signature page to Resolution Prohibiting District Reimbursement to Developer
For Various Oversizing Improvement Costs
DocuSign Envelope ID: 447233FC-13A3-4784-AA09-DF60F2639731DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C949CA2-B25A-492E-AB92-2DDBE032380CDocuSign Envelope ID: 661543C3-2404-476A-89F1-8B3BCEADEA9E
Page 60 of 70
SIMMONS & WHEELER, P.C. Certified Public Accountants 304 Inverness Way South, Suite 490, Englewood, CO 80112 (303) 689-0833
ACCOUNTANT'S Affidavit
October 18, 2023
Board of Directors
Water’s Edge Metropolitan Districts 1-2
c/o White, Bear, Ankele, Tanaka & Waldron, P.C.
2154 E. Commons Avenue, Suite 2000
Centennial, CO 80122
Re: Developer Reimbursement of oversized improvements
This report summarizes the results of the procedures we have performed related to substantiation that the District has
not accepted costs nor reimbursed Waters’ Edge Developments, Inc. (the “Developer”) for costs relating to oversized
improvements to portions of Brightwater Drive, Morningstar Way, and Turnberry Road, and streets, curb, and
sidewalk, around the park located centrally in the Districts
The Developer has submitted documentation of $18,320,797.64 of expenditures for the District Eligible Improvements
consisting of invoices and other supporting documentation as outlined in the Engineer’s Report and Verification of
Costs Associated with Public Improvements No. 9 (“Report No. 9”).
Schedio Group LLC, (“Schedio Group”), the District’s independent engineer, has reviewed certain underlying
documentation and has submitted an Engineer’s Verification verifying $18,320,797.64 as being for soft, indirect and
hard costs associated with the design and construction of Public Improvements and therefore eligible for Developer
Reimbursement. According to Report No. 9, certain of those costs relate to the oversized improvements to portions of
Brightwater Drive, Morningstar Way, and Turnberry Road, and streets, curb, and sidewalk around the park located
centrally in the Districts (“Oversize Costs”). $612,027 of the above-referenced Oversize Costs have been identified
by City of Fort Collins Staff as reimbursable by the City in accordance with the City’s oversizing reimbursement
policy (“City-Reimbursable Oversize Costs”), and said City-Reimbursable Oversize Costs are not eligible to be
acquired by the Water’s Edge Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1-5 or reimbursed to the Developer. None of Waters’ Edge
District Nos. 1-5 have reimbursed the Developer for the above-referenced City-Reimbursable Oversize Costs, nor
have Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5 acquired the improvements associated with said City-Reimbursable
Oversize Costs.
We have reviewed certain underlying documentation supporting Report No. 9 as necessary and appropriate, in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, to verify the accuracy of
the cost summary set forth in Report No. 9. I have discussed the allocation of costs relating to various invoices with
Schedio Group, to determine the reasonableness of the allocation.
We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
in the United States of America, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the financial
statements of the District. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. We performed our engagement as a
consulting service under the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' Statement of Standards for Consulting
Services. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have
been reported to you.
We are not independent with respect to the District.
Simmons & Wheeler, P.C.
Page 61 of 70
1983.0007; 1006299 1
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 3
DECLARING INACTIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT STATUS
WHEREAS, the Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 3 (the “District”) is a quasi-
municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado and is a duly organized
and existing special district pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-104(3)(a), C.R.S., the board of directors of an “inactive
special district,” as that term is defined in § 32-1-103(9.3), C.R.S., may adopt a resolution that
declares and affirms its qualifications for inactive status; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors for the District (the “Board”) has determined that the
District qualifies as an inactive special district; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to declare and affirm the District’s qualifications for
inactive status in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT AS
FOLLOWS:
1. INACTIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT STATUS. The Board hereby declares and
affirmatively states that the District meets the criteria for being an inactive special district as
defined in § 32-1-103(9.3), C.R.S. The Board directs legal counsel to file a notice of inactive
status with the agencies prescribed in § 32-1-104(3)(a), C.R.S., and, for each year thereafter in
which the District qualifies as an inactive special district, to file a notice of continuing inactive
status for the District pursuant to § 32-1-104(4), C.R.S.
2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS. The Secretary of the District (the
“Authorized Officer”) shall be authorized and is hereby directed by the Board to cause such
actions to be taken as may be necessary, including but not limited to, the adoption of a resolution
to conduct regular or special elections of the District (collectively, the “Election”) during the
period of inactive status and to seek funding for such activities from the developer or owner(s) of
property within the District’s boundaries, if necessary. The Board further hereby deems that the
following shall apply to the Election:
2.1 The Election shall be conducted pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the
“Special District Act”); §§ 1-13.5-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the “Colorado Local Government
Election Code”); and §§ 1-1-101 through 1-13-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the “Uniform Election
Page 62 of 70
1983.0007; 1006299 2
Code of 1992”), including any amendments thereto, and shall also comply with Article X, §
20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”), as necessary.
2.2 The Election shall be conducted as an independent mail ballot election
unless otherwise deemed necessary and expressed in a separate election resolution adopted
by the Board.
2.3 Pursuant to the authority set forth in § 1-1-111, C.R.S., the Board hereby
appoints Ashley B. Frisbie, of the law firm of WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA &
WALDRON, Attorneys at Law, as the Designated Election Official (the “DEO”) of the
District for the Election called by the Board, or called on behalf of the Board by the
DEO, and hereby authorizes and directs the DEO to take all actions necessary for the
proper conduct of the Election, including, if applicable, cancellation of the Election in
accordance with § 1-13.5-513, C.R.S.
2.4 In the event the DEO is not available, the Authorized Officer shall be
authorized to appoint a new DEO, who shall thereafter have all of the authority granted to
the DEO by this Resolution, the Colorado Local Government Election Code and the
Uniform Election Code of 1992.
3. COMPLIANCE MATTERS. The Board hereby directs legal counsel for the
District to undertake to all action required of inactive special districts in accordance with law.
4. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. This Resolution shall remain in full force and
effect until repealed or superseded, in whole or part, by subsequent official action of the Board,
including, but not limited to, a return to active status pursuant to § 32-1-104(3)(b), C.R.S.
[Signature page follows.]
Page 63 of 70
Page 64 of 70
1983.0007; 1006299 1
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 4
DECLARING INACTIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT STATUS
WHEREAS, the Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 4 (the “District”) is a quasi-
municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado and is a duly organized
and existing special district pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-104(3)(a), C.R.S., the board of directors of an “inactive
special district,” as that term is defined in § 32-1-103(9.3), C.R.S., may adopt a resolution that
declares and affirms its qualifications for inactive status; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors for the District (the “Board”) has determined that the
District qualifies as an inactive special district; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to declare and affirm the District’s qualifications for
inactive status in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT AS
FOLLOWS:
1. INACTIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT STATUS. The Board hereby declares and
affirmatively states that the District meets the criteria for being an inactive special district as
defined in § 32-1-103(9.3), C.R.S. The Board directs legal counsel to file a notice of inactive
status with the agencies prescribed in § 32-1-104(3)(a), C.R.S., and, for each year thereafter in
which the District qualifies as an inactive special district, to file a notice of continuing inactive
status for the District pursuant to § 32-1-104(4), C.R.S.
2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS. The Secretary of the District (the
“Authorized Officer”) shall be authorized and is hereby directed by the Board to cause such
actions to be taken as may be necessary, including but not limited to, the adoption of a resolution
to conduct regular or special elections of the District (collectively, the “Election”) during the
period of inactive status and to seek funding for such activities from the developer or owner(s) of
property within the District’s boundaries, if necessary. The Board further hereby deems that the
following shall apply to the Election:
2.1 The Election shall be conducted pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the
“Special District Act”); §§ 1-13.5-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the “Colorado Local Government
Election Code”); and §§ 1-1-101 through 1-13-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the “Uniform Election
Page 65 of 70
1983.0007; 1006299 2
Code of 1992”), including any amendments thereto, and shall also comply with Article X, §
20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”), as necessary.
2.2 The Election shall be conducted as an independent mail ballot election
unless otherwise deemed necessary and expressed in a separate election resolution adopted
by the Board.
2.3 Pursuant to the authority set forth in § 1-1-111, C.R.S., the Board hereby
appoints Ashley B. Frisbie, of the law firm of WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA &
WALDRON, Attorneys at Law, as the Designated Election Official (the “DEO”) of the
District for the Election called by the Board, or called on behalf of the Board by the
DEO, and hereby authorizes and directs the DEO to take all actions necessary for the
proper conduct of the Election, including, if applicable, cancellation of the Election in
accordance with § 1-13.5-513, C.R.S.
2.4 In the event the DEO is not available, the Authorized Officer shall be
authorized to appoint a new DEO, who shall thereafter have all of the authority granted to
the DEO by this Resolution, the Colorado Local Government Election Code and the
Uniform Election Code of 1992.
3. COMPLIANCE MATTERS. The Board hereby directs legal counsel for the
District to undertake to all action required of inactive special districts in accordance with law.
4. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. This Resolution shall remain in full force and
effect until repealed or superseded, in whole or part, by subsequent official action of the Board,
including, but not limited to, a return to active status pursuant to § 32-1-104(3)(b), C.R.S.
[Signature page follows.]
Page 66 of 70
Page 67 of 70
1983.0007; 1006299 1
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE
WATERS’ EDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 5
DECLARING INACTIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT STATUS
WHEREAS, the Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District No. 5 (the “District”) is a quasi-
municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado and is a duly organized
and existing special district pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-104(3)(a), C.R.S., the board of directors of an “inactive
special district,” as that term is defined in § 32-1-103(9.3), C.R.S., may adopt a resolution that
declares and affirms its qualifications for inactive status; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors for the District (the “Board”) has determined that the
District qualifies as an inactive special district; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to declare and affirm the District’s qualifications for
inactive status in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT AS
FOLLOWS:
1. INACTIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT STATUS. The Board hereby declares and
affirmatively states that the District meets the criteria for being an inactive special district as
defined in § 32-1-103(9.3), C.R.S. The Board directs legal counsel to file a notice of inactive
status with the agencies prescribed in § 32-1-104(3)(a), C.R.S., and, for each year thereafter in
which the District qualifies as an inactive special district, to file a notice of continuing inactive
status for the District pursuant to § 32-1-104(4), C.R.S.
2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS. The Secretary of the District (the
“Authorized Officer”) shall be authorized and is hereby directed by the Board to cause such
actions to be taken as may be necessary, including but not limited to, the adoption of a resolution
to conduct regular or special elections of the District (collectively, the “Election”) during the
period of inactive status and to seek funding for such activities from the developer or owner(s) of
property within the District’s boundaries, if necessary. The Board further hereby deems that the
following shall apply to the Election:
2.1 The Election shall be conducted pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the
“Special District Act”); §§ 1-13.5-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the “Colorado Local Government
Election Code”); and §§ 1-1-101 through 1-13-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the “Uniform Election
Page 68 of 70
1983.0007; 1006299 2
Code of 1992”), including any amendments thereto, and shall also comply with Article X, §
20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”), as necessary.
2.2 The Election shall be conducted as an independent mail ballot election
unless otherwise deemed necessary and expressed in a separate election resolution adopted
by the Board.
2.3 Pursuant to the authority set forth in § 1-1-111, C.R.S., the Board hereby
appoints Ashley B. Frisbie, of the law firm of WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA &
WALDRON, Attorneys at Law, as the Designated Election Official (the “DEO”) of the
District for the Election called by the Board, or called on behalf of the Board by the
DEO, and hereby authorizes and directs the DEO to take all actions necessary for the
proper conduct of the Election, including, if applicable, cancellation of the Election in
accordance with § 1-13.5-513, C.R.S.
2.4 In the event the DEO is not available, the Authorized Officer shall be
authorized to appoint a new DEO, who shall thereafter have all of the authority granted to
the DEO by this Resolution, the Colorado Local Government Election Code and the
Uniform Election Code of 1992.
3. COMPLIANCE MATTERS. The Board hereby directs legal counsel for the
District to undertake to all action required of inactive special districts in accordance with law.
4. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. This Resolution shall remain in full force and
effect until repealed or superseded, in whole or part, by subsequent official action of the Board,
including, but not limited to, a return to active status pursuant to § 32-1-104(3)(b), C.R.S.
[Signature page follows.]
Page 69 of 70
Page 70 of 70