HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/10/2018 - UPDATES TO THE CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR REVIEWING PDATE:
STAFF:
July 10, 2018
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Updates to the City Council Policy for Reviewing Proposed Service Plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review a proposed update to the City’s policy for reviewing service plans for Title 32
Metropolitan Districts (Metro Districts). In 2008, the City adopted the existing policy by Resolution 2008-069. At
that time, City Council responded to changing market conditions to enable the use of Metro Districts to support
primarily commercial development. Residential development faces similar market conditions as well as
constrained land supply. The proposed revisions address these conditions while furthering several City goals.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council support the recommended update to the Title 32 Metropolitan Districts draft policy?
2. Does the Council support the addition of a Regional Improvements component in the Model Service Plan?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Policy Context
In 2008, the City adopted a policy for reviewing proposed service plans for Title 32 Metropolitan District (Metro
Districts) Service Plans (Service Plans) by Resolution 2008-069. The policy was intended to aid commercial
development addressing escalating infrastructure costs and to compete with commercial development in adjacent
communities. At the time, City Council preferred to adopt a policy that excluded residential developments, except
mixed-use projects. The policy included a limit on the assessed value ratio between commercial and residential to
90 percent/10 percent.
Today, residential development faces similar market conditions-rising infrastructure, construction, and land costs-
as well as constrained land supply and limited access to key resources, such as water. In addition, the City’s
population forecast indicates that build-out of the community will likely happen in the next 25 to 30 years. An
update to the Metro District policy will address these market conditions and enable residential development to
deliver several City objectives.
Summary of Work to Date
City Council has reviewed the purpose and nature of Metro Districts and the existing policy in two previous work
sessions, on October 24, 2017 and November 28, 2017. At the most recent work session, Council provided the
following direction on a policy update:
• Limit Metro District use by reserving their use for extraordinary public benefits and outcomes;
• Preserve the prescriptive elements of the existing policy to ensure narrow application of the tool;
• Avoid using the tool to facilitate the construction of development amenities, such as pools, golf course, or
similar; and
• Define public benefits that are specific and clear.
July 10, 2018 Page 2
On March 19, 2018, the Council Finance Committee reviewed a draft of the policy revisions. The primary direction
from that review was to further clarify the public benefits that must be delivered as a condition of using Metro
Districts to support residential development.
Public Benefits
The updated policy (Attachment 1) supports the formation of Metro District regardless of development type when
a District delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits should be: (1) aligned with the goals and
objectives of the City whether such extraordinary public benefits are provided by the Metro District or by the entity
developing the Metro District because Metro Districts exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be
practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis.
The policy identifies four key public benefit focus areas, including:
1. Environmental Sustainability Outcomes: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate
the delivery of specific and measurable environmental outcomes, including but not limited to: (i) reduction
of Green House Gases (GHG), (ii) conservation of water or energy, (iii) encourage multimodal
transportation, (iv) enhance community resiliency-against future environmental events (e.g., flooding,
drought, etc.); (v) increase renewable energy capacity; and/or (vi) deliver other environmental outcomes.
2. Critical Public Infrastructure: Development of public improvements that address or facilitate addressing
significant infrastructure challenges previously identified by the City, either within the development or the
area immediately adjacent to the District, whether such improvements address a locally significant
challenge or a City-wide challenge.
3. Smart Growth Management: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate the delivery of
specific design components that: (i) increase the density of development within the District; (ii) establish,
enhance or address the walkability and pedestrian friendliness of the District; (iii) increase the availability
of transit and/or multimodal oriented facilities; (iv) create compelling public spaces; and/or (v) encourage
mixed-use development patterns.
4. Strategic Priorities: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate the delivery of strategic
priorities specified in existing long-term strategic planning documents, such as City Plan, Affordable
Housing Plan, Economic Health Strategic Plan, and applicable Sub-Area Plans. These priorities include,
but are not limited to:
a. Affordable Housing: Deliver or facilitate the delivery of additional affordable housing units at the
City’s defined level of Area Median Income (AMI) or below. The City defines Affordable Housing
as units affordable to a household earning 80 percent of AMI.
b. Infill/Redevelopment: Enable the infill or redevelopment of property within the City, especially
when such development is consistent with City Plan.
c. Economic Health Outcomes: Enable delivery of specific and measurable economic outcomes,
such as: (i) job growth; (ii) retention of an existing business; and/or (iii) construction of a missing
economic resource.
The policy provides additional detail on these proposed focus areas by including a list of examples to illustrate the
City’s desired outcomes.
Comparison of Policy Versions
Following Council guidance, the updated policy retains most of the existing prescriptive elements. The primary
changes to the policy include:
• Mill Levy Cap: The updated policy would increase the Mill Levy Cap from 40 Mills to 50 Mills with no more
than 40 Mills dedicated to debt;
• Basic Infrastructure: The updated policy allows the funding of basic infrastructure by Metro Districts only
to the extent then enable extraordinary public benefit outcomes;
July 10, 2018 Page 3
• Dissolution Limit: The updated policy requires that the district dissolve within 40 years unless a majority of
the district board is residents and votes to refund the debt realizing a net present value saving for the
district; and
• Commercial/Residential Ratio: The updated policy removes a specific commercial to residential ratio
requirement - instead a District must provide extraordinary public benefit to utilize the tool.
The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of key policy provisions:
Table 1
Key Policy Provision Comparison
Existing Updated
Mill Levy Caps 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit 40 years 40 years (Resident based
refunding allowed)
Citizen Control As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Projected over an extended
period
Projected over an extended
period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
90% to 10% N/A
In addition, the new policy requires the use of a Model Service Plan (Attachment 2) that stipulates many
additional limitations on the tool. These limitations are based on common practice by several other communities
and include but is not limited to:
• Covenant Control Restriction-The District is not authorized to impose, manage, or provide covenant
enforcement actions.
• Fire Protection Restriction-The District is not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless such facilities
and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the Poudre Fire Authority.
• Public Safety Services-The District is not authorized to provide policing or safety enforcement services.
• Golf Construction Restriction-The District shall not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct,
install, relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to
an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
• Television Relay and Translation Restriction-The District is not authorized to plan for, design, acquire,
construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities
and services.
• Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation-The District shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption
in the Fort Collins City Code.
• Consolidation Limitation-Districts shall not be allowed to file a request with any Court to consolidate with
another Title 32 district without the prior written consent of the City.
The biggest additional limitations in the Model Service Plan include:
• Overlap Limitation-The boundaries of a District shall not overlap with another district unless the aggregate
mill levy for payment of Debt of the overlapping Districts will not at any time exceed the policy’s allowed
maximum debt mill levy of 40 mills.
• Initial Debt Limitation-A District may not issue debt, impose a mill levy for payment of debt, or impose fees
for the purpose of repayment of debt before approval by the City of a development plan that secures the
public benefits to be delivered and/or an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) further securing the delivery
of the public benefits.
July 10, 2018 Page 4
Regional Improvements Provision
The proposed draft of the Model Service Plan (Attachment 2) includes a section that enables the support of
regional improvements. This section is inserted for discussion purposes. The approach may create a viable
method for funding much needed regional infrastructure in areas where Metro Districts are likely to be used to
support residential development. The section is optional.
The regional improvements section provides the ability for the City to request a Metro District collect and remit an
additional mill levy, not subject to the policy maximum mill levy, to the City. These revenues are intended to fund
regional improvements required in part by the project within the Metro District. Examples of such improvements
could include: vehicular grade separated crossings of railroad lines, improvements to address regionally
significant storm water issues, or intersections connecting City streets to an Interstate or similar system.
The regional improvements section (See Attachment 2) stipulates:
• The City must identify the type of regional improvements that could be funded with the additional mill.
• Limits the mill to a maximum of 5.000.
• The City and the Metro District must enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) identifying the
specific improvement and anticipated length of collection for the mill.
These stipulations are intended to protect the residents and owners in the District as well as create transparency
regarding the use of funds.
Review Process
The process for reviewing Metro District Service Plans includes two primary phases-Letter of Intent (LOI) and
Service Plan Application. The two phases are outlined below and in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4:
• Letter of Intent (LOI)-First phase of the Metro District Service Plan Review process and shall contain
(see Policy for specifics):
o Summary narrative of the proposed development and Metro District purpose
o Sketch plan of the proposed district, showing: property locations and boundaries, surrounding
land uses, proposed use(s), proposed improvements, existing natural features, utility locations,
and photographs (if helpful)
o District need justification
o Explanation of public benefit and plan to assure delivery by the District
o District proposal and Service Plan specifics
• Service Plan Application Review-Key phase of Metro District Service Plan Review process, including:
o Formal application submittal by applicant (see Policy and Application for details)
o Third-Party financial review (if needed) of the Service Plan financial plan assumptions and
feasibility
o Formal staff review and meetings with applicant
o Council Finance Review based on completed analysis by staff and third-parties - includes a
formal recommendation by staff of alignment with existing policy
o Council work session (if needed) to review specifics of a proposed Service Plan)
o City Council consideration - final step, all Service Plans require Council approval
Evaluation Framework/Criteria
To provide Council information and assessment consistent with this Policy, staff will review and report on District
proposals in the following areas:
July 10, 2018 Page 5
• Public Benefit Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Scan: To comprehensively and consistently evaluate
District proposals, an interdisciplinary staff team, inclusive of representatives from Planning, Economic
Health, Sustainability, and other Departments as appropriate, will be formed. This team will rely on the
City’s Triple Bottom Line evaluation approach, and other means, to assess a District proposal consistent
with this Policy and City Goals and Objectives more broadly.
• Financial Assessment: All District proposals are required to submit a Financial Plan to the City for review.
Utilizing the District Financial Plan, and other supporting information which may be necessary, the City
will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability. Additionally, should a District desire to utilize
District funding for basic improvements, as determined by the City in its sole discretion, staff will assess
the value of this benefit against the public benefits received in exchange.
• Policy Evaluation: All proposals will be evaluated against this Policy and the City’s Model Service Plan,
with any areas of difference being evaluated and reported on.
Performance Assurances
A key aspect of the updated policy is the requirement to deliver public benefit. To assure that these benefits are
delivered in cases where a Metro District itself will not provide the public benefits, the City will require several
performance assurances, including:
• Approved Development Plan - The Model Service Plan identifies an Approved Development Plan -a
development plan or other process established by the City (including but not limited to approval of a final
plat or PUD by the City Council) - as the controlling document regarding public improvements to be
financed and constructed by a District. This Plan will also document and require as part of the land use
approval process the aspects of promised pubic benefits that cannot be enforced through a Metro District
Service Plan.
• Intergovernmental Agreement - In some cases, an Approved Development Plan may not be able to
enforce the public benefit requirements part of a Metro District Service Plan. In these cases, an
Intergovernmental Agreement may also be required to enforce the performance requirements associated
with a proposal.
• Initial Restriction of Powers - All Metro Districts will include a limitation on the initial use of two key powers
(1) levy or collect revenue for the repayment of debt, and (2) issue debt. These powers will be prohibited
until an Approved Development Plan and/or Intergovernmental Agreement are executed and in place.
Fees and Staffing
The updated policy includes adjustments to the fees charged to applicants. The intent of the fees is to offset the
cost of staffing the intake and review of Metro District Service Plan applications.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Updated Metro District Policy (draft) (PDF)
2. Model Service Plan (draft) (PDF)
3. Metro District Service Plan Review Process (PDF)
4. Interdisciplinary Review Team Charter (PDF)
5. Work Session Summary, November 28, 2017 (PDF)
6. Council Finance Committee minutes, April 16, 2018 (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
POLICY FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED
SERVICE PLANS FOR TITLE 32 METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CO
Revised July 17, 2018
Introduction.
This policy establishes the criteria, guidelines and processes to be followed by City Council and City staff
in considering and by applicants in submitting to the City service plans for the organization of
metropolitan districts or amendments to those plans (“Policy”), as provided in Colorado’s Special District
Act in Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Act”). The Act provides that
metropolitan districts are quasi-municipal corporations and political subdivisions (“District”) that can be
organized within the boundaries of a municipality provided the municipality’s governing body approves
by resolution the proposed service plan for the District. Under the Act, the service plan constitutes the
document that delineates the specific powers and functions the District can exercise, including the
facilities and services it can provide, the taxes it can impose and its permitted financial arrangements
(the “Service Plan”). The Act requires Districts to conform to their Service Plans.
Section 1 – Policy Objectives and Statements.
A. This Policy generally supports the formation of a District where it will deliver extraordinary
public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary
public benefits are provided by the District or by the entity organizing the District because the
District exists to provide public improvements.
B. A District, when properly structured, can enhance the quality of development in the City. The
City is receptive to District formation that provides extraordinary public benefits which could not
be practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which would be
construed as competing or duplicative.
C. The approval of a District Service Plan is at the sole discretion of City Council, which may reject,
approve, or conditionally approve Service Plans on a case-by-case basis. Nothing in this Policy is
intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit this discretion of City Council, which retains full
authority regarding the approval, terms, conditions and limitations of all Service Plans.
D. Policy Objectives.
The City will evaluate a proposed District and its Service Plan based on the District’s ability to
deliver public benefits through extraordinary development outcomes, specific examples are
provided in Exhibit A and generally occur in the following four focus areas:
1. Environmental Sustainability Outcomes: Development of public improvements that deliver
or facilitate the delivery of specific and measurable environmental outcomes, including but
ATTACHMENT 1
2
not limited to: (i) reduction of Green House Gases (“GHG”), (ii) conservation of water or
energy, (iii) encourage multimodal transportation, (iv) enhance community resiliency –
against future environmental events (e.g., flooding, drought, etc.); (v) increase renewable
energy capacity; and/or (vi) deliver other environmental outcomes.
2. Critical Public Infrastructure: Development of public improvements that address or facilitate
addressing significant infrastructure challenges previously identified by the City, either
within or proximate to the District, whether such improvements address a locally-significant
challenge or a City-wide challenge.
3. Smart Growth Management: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate
the delivery of specific design components that: (i) increase the density of development
within the District; (ii) establish, enhance or address the walkability and pedestrian
friendliness of the District; (iii) increase the availability of transit and/or multimodal oriented
facilities; (iv) create compelling public spaces; and/or (v) encourage mixed-use development
patterns.
4. Strategic Priorities: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate the
delivery of strategic priorities specified in the City’s existing long-term strategic planning
documents, such as City Plan, Affordable Housing Plan, Economic Health Strategic Plan, and
applicable Sub-Area Plans. These priorities include, but are not limited to:
a. Affordable Housing: Deliver or facilitate the delivery of additional affordable housing
units at the City’s defined level of Area Median Income (“AMI”) or below. The City
defines Affordable Housing as units affordable to a household earning 80 percent of
AMI.
b. Infill/Redevelopment: Enable the infill or redevelopment of property within the City,
especially when such development is consistent with City Plan.
c. Economic Health Outcomes: Enable delivery of specific and measurable economic
outcomes, such as: (i) job growth; (ii) retention of an existing business; and/or (iii)
construction of a missing economic resource.
In determining whether a proposed District delivers extraordinary public benefits, the City may
consider: (i) ways in which the proposed improvements exceed the City’s minimum
requirements and standards; (ii) ways in which the existence of the District facilitates the
extraordinary public benefits and whether the extraordinary benefits are feasible without the
District; and (iii) any other factors the City deems relevant under the circumstances.
E. Policy Statements:
1. Limited Use: The City wishes to exact a high standard of use for Districts thereby limiting
their use. An applicant project is expected to deliver extraordinary benefits across multiple
City objectives two or more of the objectives described in Section 1.D. of this Policy.
3
2. Broad and Demonstrable Public Benefit: Districts are expected to provide broad public
benefit and the applicant will be asked to demonstrate and provide assurances of those
benefits. The City will utilize the Service Plans, development agreements, and other
contractual agreements to document and enforce District commitments.
3. District Governance: It is the intent of the City that owner/resident control of Districts occur
as early as feasible. Service Plans should include governance structures that encourage and
accommodate this. The use of control Districts (also known as “service” or “managing”
Districts) that allow developers to control the other Districts that provide the tax revenues
beyond the time needed to repay the issued debt, is to be discouraged.
4. Basic Infrastructure Improvements: A District proposing to fund basic infrastructure
improvements will not be favorably received except when used to offset higher costs
associated with delivering public benefit through extraordinary development outcomes (see
Exhibit A for examples).
5. Minimum District Size: A District proposed to issue less than $7 million of authorized debt
will not be considered.
Section 2 – Evaluation Criteria
A. To provide City Council with information and an assessment consistent with this Policy, staff will
review and report on District proposals in the following areas:
1. Public Benefit Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Scan: To comprehensively and
consistently evaluate District proposals, an interdisciplinary staff team, inclusive of
representatives from Planning, Economic Health, Sustainability, and other Departments as
appropriate, will be formed. This team will rely on the City’s Triple Bottom Line evaluation
approach, and other means, to assess a District proposal consistent with this Policy and City
goals and objectives more broadly.
2. Financial Assessment: All District proposals are required to submit a Financial Plan to the
City for review. Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting information
which may be necessary, the City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability.
Additionally, should a District desire to utilize District funding for basic infrastructure
improvements, as determined by the City in its sole discretion, staff will assess the value of
this benefit against the public benefits received in exchange.
3. Policy Evaluation: All proposals will be evaluated by City staff against this Policy and the
City’s “Model Service Plan” attached as Exhibit “B”, with any areas of difference being
identified, evaluated and reported to City Council.
Section 3 – Application Process
4
A. Process Overview: The application process is designed to provide early feedback to an applicant,
adequate time for a comprehensive staff review, and the appropriate steps and meeting
opportunities with decision makers.
B. Letter of Interest: Applicant will provide City with a Letter of Interest and pre-application fee
(refer to fees below). The Letter of Interest shall contain the following:
1. Summary narrative of the proposed development and District proposal.
2. Sketch plan showing: property location and boundaries; surrounding land uses; proposed
use(s); proposed improvements (buildings, landscaping, parking/drive areas, water
treatment/detention, drainage); existing natural features (water bodies, wetlands, large
trees, wildlife, canals, irrigation ditches); utility line locations (if known); and photographs
(helpful but not required).
3. Clear justification for why a District is needed.
4. Explanation of public benefits, making specific reference to this Policy and other relevant
City documents.
5. District proposal and Service Plan specifics, including: District powers and purpose; District
infrastructure and costs; mill levy rate (both debt and, operations and maintenance); term
of District; forecasted period of build-out; proposed timeline for formation; and current
development status of project.
C. Preliminary Staff Meeting with Applicant (Optional): Based on an initial review of the Letter of
Interest, staff may meet with the applicant to discuss the District proposal, potential public
benefits, initial staff feedback, the evaluation process, fees, and other application elements.
D. Formal Application and Service Plan Submittal: Upon taking account of staff input, applicant may
submit a formal application for consideration following the requirements specified in the City’s
District Application, including the Service Plan in which the applicant shall highlight the
substantive provisions that deviate from this Policy and the Model Service Plan attached as
Exhibit “B”.
E. Formal Staff Review: An interdisciplinary staff team will review the applicant submittal along
with any follow-up documentation that is requested in order to assess the application according
to this Policy and other appropriate City policy. Applicants should expect several rounds of
feedback and review from City staff.
F. Council Finance Committee Meeting: The Council Finance Committee will review all District
proposals and provide feedback and recommendations.
5
G. Council Work Session Meeting (optional): Based on the magnitude and complexity of the
development project and District proposal, staff and/or the Council Finance Committee may
recommend a Council Work Session.
H. Council Regular Meeting: City Council meeting to consider Service Plan approval.
Section 4 –Service Plan
A. Purpose: In addition to the requirements of the Act, a Service Plan should memorialize the
understandings and agreements between the District and the City, as well as the considerations
that compelled the City to authorize the formation of the District. The Service Plan must also
include all applicable information required by the Act.
B. Compliance with Applicable Law: Any Service Plan submitted to the City for approval must
comply with all state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including the Act.
C. Model Service Plan: To clearly communicate City requirements and streamline legal review, the
City will require the use of its Model Service Plan attached as Exhibit B. With justification, the
City may consider deviations in the proposed Service Plan, but generally all Service Plans should
include the following:
1. Eminent Domain NOT Authorized: The Service Plan shall contain language that prohibits the
District from exercising the power of eminent domain. However, the City may choose to
exercise its power of eminent domain to construct public improvements within the District
in which case the District and the City will enter into an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the public improvements and funding for that use of eminent domain.
2. Maximum Mill Levy: The Service Plan shall restrict the District’s total mill levy authorization
for both debt service and operations and maintenance to fifty (50) mills, subject to
adjustment as provided below. A portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be utilized by the
District to fund operations and maintenance functions, including customary administrative
expenses incurred in operating the District such as accounting and legal expenses and
otherwise complying with applicable reporting requirements. No more than ten (10) mills
may be used for operations and maintenance (the “Operations and Maintenance Mill
Levy”).
a. Increased mill levies may be considered for Districts that are predominately commercial
in use, at the sole discretion of the City Council.
b. The Maximum Mill Levy may be adjustable from the base year of the District as provided
for in the Model Service Plan, so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues
generated by the District’s mill levy, as adjusted, for changes occurring after the base
year, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of the changes.
6
3. Debt Term Limit: A District shall be allowed no more than forty (40) years for the levy and
collection of taxes used to service debt unless a majority of the Board of Directors of the
District imposing the mill levy are residents of such District and have voted in favor of a
refunding of a part or all of the Debt and such refunding is for one or more of the purposes
authorized in C.R.S. Section 11-56-104.
4. District Dissolution: Perpetual Districts shall not be allowed except in cases where ongoing
operations and maintenance are required. Except where ongoing operations and
maintenance has been authorized, a District must be dissolved as soon as practical upon:
a. The payment of all debt and obligations; and
b. The completion of District development activity.
5. District Fees: Impact fees, development fees, service fees, and any other fees must be
identified with particularity in the District Service Plan. Impact and development fees must
not be levied or collected against the end user – i.e., residents and/or non-developer
owners.
6. Notice Requirements: The Service Plan shall require that the District use reasonable efforts
to assure that all developers of the property located within the District provide written
notice to all purchasers of property in the District regarding the District’s existing mill levies,
its maximum debt mill levy, as well as a general description of the District’s authority to
impose and collect rates, fees, tolls and charges. The form of notice shall be filed with the
City prior to the initial issuance of the debt of the District imposing the mill levy.
7. Annual Report: The Service Plan must obligate the District to file an annual report not later
than September 1 of each year with the City Clerk for the year ending the preceding
December 31, the requirements of which may be waived in whole or in part by the City
Manager. Details of the Annual Report are included in the Model Service Plan.
D. Service Plan Requirements: In additional to all other information required in a Service Plan by
the Act, a Service Plan must include the following:
1. Financial Plan: The Service Plan must include debt and operating financial projections
prepared by an investment banking firm or financial advisor qualified to make such
projections. The financial firm must be listed in the Bond Buyers Marketplace or, in the
City’s sole discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections. The
Financial Plan must include debt issuance and service schedules and calculations
establishing the District’s projected maximum debt capacity (the “Total Debt Limitation”)
based on assumptions of: (i) Projected Interest Rate on the debt to be issued; (ii) Projected
Assessed Valuation of the property within the District; and (iii) Projected Rate of Absorption
of the assessed valuation within the District. These assumptions must use market-based,
market comparable valuation and absorption data and may use an annual inflation rate of
7
three percent (3%) or the Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12-month period for the
Denver-Boulder-Greeley statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor
Statistics, whichever is lesser.
a. Total Debt Limitation: The total debt authorized in the Service Plan must not exceed
100% of the projected maximum debt capacity as shown in the Financial Plan.
b. Administrative, Operational and Maintenance Costs: The Financial Plan must also
include foreseeable administrative, operational and maintenance costs.
2. Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan: Every Service Plan must include, in addition to
all materials, plans and reports required by the Act, an Infrastructure Preliminary
Development Plan (“IPDP”). This IPDP must include, at a minimum:
1. A map or maps, and construction drawings of such a scale, detail and size as
required by the Planning Department, providing an illustration of public
improvements proposed to be built, acquired or financed by the District;
2. A written narrative and description of the public improvements; and
3. A general description of the District’s proposed role with regard to the same.
Due to the preliminary nature of the IPDP, the Service Plan must indicate that the City’s
approval of the IPDP shall not bind the City and its boards and commissions and City Council
in any way relating to the review and consideration of land use applications within the
District.
3. Intergovernmental Agreement: Any intergovernmental agreement which is required, or
known at the time of formation of the District to likely be required, to fulfill the purposes of
the District, must be described in the Service Plan, along with supporting rationale. The
Service Plan must provide that execution of intergovernmental agreements which are likely
to cause substantial increase in the District’s budget and are not described in the Service
Plan will require the prior approval of City Council.
4. Extraterritorial Service Agreement: The Service Plan must describe any planned
extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan must provide that any extraterritorial
service agreement by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require prior
approval of City Council.
Section 5 – Fees
A. No request to create a Metro District shall proceed until the fees set forth herein are paid when
required. All checks are to be made payable to the City of Fort Collins and sent to the Economic
Health Office.
8
1. Letter of Intent Submittal Fee: A Letter of Intent is to be submitted to the City’s Economic
Health Office and a non-refundable $2,500 fee shall be paid at the time of submittal of the
Letter.
2. Application Fee: An application along with a draft Service Plan (based on the Model Service
Plan) is to be submitted to the City’s Economic Health Office and a $7,500 non-refundable
fee along with a $7,500 deposit towards the City’s other expenses shall be paid at the time
of submittal of the Application and draft Service Plan.
3. Annual Fee: Each District shall pay an annual fee for the City’s on-going monitoring of each
Metro District. This annual fee shall be $500 or if multiple Districts exist serving a single
project, then the annual fee shall be $500 plus $250 for each additional District beyond the
first (e.g., the annual fee for Consolidated ABC Metro Districts 1 to 7 shall be $500 plus $250
times six or $2,000).
4. Non-Model Service Plan Fee: A District proposal requesting a substantial deviation from this
Policy or the Model Service Plan, shall pay an additional non-refundable fee of $5,000 at the
time of submitting its application; the City shall in its sole and reasonable discretion
determine if a draft Service Plan proposes a substantial deviation from this Policy or the
Model Service Plan.
5. Other Expenses: If the deposits paid in subsections 2 and 6 are not sufficient to cover all the
City’s other expenses, the applicant for a District shall pay all reasonable consultant, legal,
and other fees and expenses incurred by the City in the process of reviewing the draft
Service Plan or amended Service Plan prior to adoption, documents related to a bond issue
and such other expenses as may be necessary for the City to incur to interface with the
District. All such fees and expenses shall be paid within 30 days of receipt of an invoice for
these additional fees and expenses.
6. Service Plan Amendment Fee: If a proposed amendment to a Service Plan is submitted to
the City’s Economic Health Office, it should be submitted with a non-refundable $2,500 fee
along with a $2,500 deposit towards the City’s other expenses and shall be paid at the time
of submittal of the application and draft amended Service Plan.
9
EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC BENEFIT EXAMPLES
The following list of examples is meant to be illustrative of the types of projects that deliver the defined
public benefits in this policy. Projects that deliver similar or better outcomes will also be considered on
their merits.
(Continued on next page)
Category / Sub-Category Example Projects
1. Green House Gas Reductions - See subsequent sub-categories
2. Water and/or Energy Conservation
- District-wide non-potable water system(s)
- District-wide renewable energy systems(s)
- Delivery of 20% or more rooftop solar
- Greywater reuse system(s) - if allowed by law
3. Multimodal Transportation
- Buffered bike lanes
- Wider than required sidewalks
- Enhanced pedestrian crossings
- Underpass(es)
4. Enhance Community Resiliency
- Significant stormwater improvements (previously identified)
- Improvements to existing bridges
5. Increase Renewable Energy Capacity
- District-wide renewable energy systems(s)
- Set aside land for community solar garden(s)
- Utility scale renewable project(s)
1. Within District Area
- Community Park Land (beyond code requirements)
- Regional Stormwater Facilities
- Major arterial development
- Parking Structures (Publicly Accessible)
2. Adjacent to Proposed District
- Contribution to major interchange/intersection
- Contribution to grade separated railroad crossings
Environmental Sustainability Outcomes
Critical Public Infrastructure
10
Category / Sub-Category Example Projects
1. Increase density
- Alley load construction
- Smaller Lot Size
- Increased multifamily development
2. Walkability & Pedestrian Friendliness
- Wider than required sidewalks
- Enhanced pedestrian crossings
- Underpass(es)
- Trail system enhancements
3. Increase availablity of Transit
- Improved bus stops
- Restricted access guideways for bus operations
- Transfer facilities
4. Public Spaces
- Pocket Parks
- Neighborhood Parks (beyond code requirements)
1. Affordable Housing
- Units permanently affordable to 80% Area Median Income
- Land dedicated to City's land bank program
2. Infill/Redevelopment
- Address environmental contamination / concern
- Consolidate wetlands or natural area (positive benefits)
3. Economic Health Outcomes
- Facilitate job growth (at or above County median income)
- Retain an existing business
High Quality and Smart Growth Management
Strategic Priorities
11
EXHIBIT B
MODEL SERVICE PLAN
DRAFT – 7/5/18
1
City of Fort Collins
Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Service Plan
This model service plan template should be referenced in conjunction with the
City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing Service Plans for Title 32
Metropolitan Districts.
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT – 7/5/18
2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
Purpose and Intent .....................................................................................................................................
Need for District .........................................................................................................................................
Objective of the City regarding District’s Service Plan ................................................................................
DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................................
BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ........................................................................................................................
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFIT & ASSESSED VALUATION ...........
Project and Planned Development .............................................................................................................
Public Benefits .............................................................................................................................................
Assessed Valuation .....................................................................................................................................
INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ..................................................................................................
DISTRICT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................
AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS .....................................................................................................
Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations .....................................
Covenant Control Prohibition ..........................................................................................................
Eminent Domain Restriction ............................................................................................................
Fee Limitation ...................................................................................................................................
Operations and Maintenance ..........................................................................................................
Fire Protection Restriction ...............................................................................................................
Public Safety Services Restriction ....................................................................................................
Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction ............................................................................
Golf Course Construction Restriction ................................................................................................
Television Relay and Translation Restriction ...................................................................................
Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation .........................................................................................
Sub-district Restriction .....................................................................................................................
Initial Debt Limitation ......................................................................................................................
Privately Placed Debt Limitation ......................................................................................................
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ........................................................................................
Development Standards .............................................................................................................................
Contracting ..................................................................................................................................................
DRAFT – 7/5/18
3
Land Acquisition and Conveyance ..............................................................................................................
Equal Employment and Discrimination .......................................................................................................
Public Art Requirement ...............................................................................................................................
FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT ...............................................................................................................
Financial Plan ..............................................................................................................................................
Mill Levies ....................................................................................................................................................
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum .........................................................................................................
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .......................................................................
Operating Mill Levy ..........................................................................................................................
Assessed Value and Mill Levies ........................................................................................................
Gallagher Adjustments .....................................................................................................................
Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ...............................................................................................................
Refunding Debt ................................................................................................................................
Maximum Debt Authorization ..........................................................................................................
Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount .......................................................................
Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification ..............................................................................
Disclosure to Purchasers .............................................................................................................................
External Financial Advisor ...........................................................................................................................
Disclosure to Debt Purchasers ....................................................................................................................
Security for Debt .........................................................................................................................................
TABOR Compliance .....................................................................................................................................
District’s Operating Costs ............................................................................................................................
Regional Improvements .................................................................................................................................
Regional Mill Levy Authority .......................................................................................................................
Regional Mill Levy Imposition .....................................................................................................................
City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements ..........................................................................................
Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan ............................................................................
Expenditure of Regional Mill Levy Revenues ..............................................................................................
Intergovernmental Agreement ........................................................................................................
No Intergovernmental Agreement ...................................................................................................
Regional Mill Levy Term ..............................................................................................................................
Completion of Regional Improvements ......................................................................................................
DRAFT – 7/5/18
4
City Authority to Require Imposition ..........................................................................................................
Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .................................................................................
Gallagher Adjustment .................................................................................................................................
City Fees ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bankruptcy Limitations ..................................................................................................................................
Annual Reports ...............................................................................................................................................
General ........................................................................................................................................................
Report Requirements ..................................................................................................................................
Narrative ...........................................................................................................................................
Financial Statements .........................................................................................................................
Capital Expenditures ........................................................................................................................
Financial Obligations .........................................................................................................................
Other Information ............................................................................................................................
Reporting of Significant Events ...................................................................................................................
Failure to Submit .........................................................................................................................................
Service Plan Amendments .............................................................................................................................
Material Modifications ..................................................................................................................................
Dissolution ......................................................................................................................................................
Sanctions .........................................................................................................................................................
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................
Resolution of Approval ..................................................................................................................................
DRAFT – 7/5/18
5
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Intent.
The District, which is intended to be an independent unit of local government separate and
distinct from the City, is governed by this Service Plan, the Special District Act and other applicable
State law. Except as may otherwise be provided for by State law, City Code or this Service Plan, the
District's activities are subject to review and approval by the City Council only insofar as they are a
material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act.
It is intended that the District will provide all of the Public Improvements for the Project for
the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the District. The primary purpose
of the District will be to finance the construction of these Public Improvements by the issuance of
Debt.
[Add if Applicable] It is intended that this Service Plan also requires the District to pay a
portion of the cost of the Regional Improvements as part of ensuring that development and those
that benefit from development pay for the associated costs.
The District is not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services except as
expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
It is the intent of the District to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred
or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt,
and if the District is authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or maintenance
functions, to retain only the power necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees authorized in
this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions.
It is intended that the District shall comply the provisions of this Service Plan and that the City
may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section XVIII of this Service
Plan.
B. Need for the District.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the
immediate vicinity of the District that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the
planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and financing
of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the District is therefore necessary
in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic
manner possible.
C. Objective of the City Regarding District's Service Plan.
The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the District to provide
for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of
the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District. All Debt is
DRAFT – 7/5/18
6
expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum
Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties and at a tax mill levy no higher than the
Maximum Debt Mill Levy for commercial and residential properties, and/or repaid by Fees, as
long as such Fees are not imposed upon or collected from Taxable Property owned or occupied by
an End User for the purpose of creating a capital cost payment obligation as further described in
Section VII.A.11. Debt which is issued within these parameters and, as further described in the
Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to support the
servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt.
[Add description of any relevant intergovernmental agreement with the City.]
II. DEFINITIONS
In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized
format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding the District’s Debt
Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. The District’s Aggregate Mill Levy does not include
any Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy.
Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that the
District may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, not to exceed fifty (50)
mills.
Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use
application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public
improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service
Area.
Board: means the duly constituted Board of Directors of the District.
Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations
for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax
mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include
intergovernmental agreements pledging the collection and payment of property taxes or
Fees in connection with a service district and taxing district(s) structure, if applicable, and
other contracts through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property.
City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality. Any provision
in this Service Plan requiring “City” approval shall be deemed to require the City Council’s
prior written approval, exercised in its sole discretion.
City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use
Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended.
City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Any exercise
of approval or other power by the City Council under this Service Plan shall be deemed to
be exercised by the City Council in its sole discretion.
City Manager: means the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes.
DRAFT – 7/5/18
7
Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property the District
for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan.
Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual
rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property.
Developer Obligation: means any agreement executed by the District for the purpose of
borrowing funds from any Developer or related party developing or selling land within the
Service Area or who is a member of the Board.
District: means the [Name of District] organized under and governed by this Service Plan.
District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District Boundary
Map.
District Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as
Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference.
End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the District,
who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or
Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner or
commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs
homes or commercial structures is not an End User.
External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) is qualified to advise Colorado
governmental entities on matters relating to the issuance of securities by Colorado
governmental entities including matters such as the pricing, sales and marketing of such
securities and the procuring of bond ratings, credit enhancement and insurance in respect of
such securities; (2) shall be an underwriter, investment banker, or individual listed as a
public finance advisor in the Bond Buyer’s Municipal Market Place or, in the City’s sole
discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections; and (3) is
not an officer or employee of the Districts.
Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and chargers the District is authorized to impose
and collect under this Service Plan.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which
is prepared by an External Financial Advisor in accordance with the requirements of this
Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (b) how
the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from
property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District
Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course. In the event the Financial Plan
is not prepared by an External Financial Advisor, the Financial Plan is to be accompanied
by a letter of support from an External Financial Advisor.
Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be
added to the District Boundaries after the District organization, which property is legally
described in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in
the map attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference.
Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the District is permitted to issue as set
forth in Section IX.B.8 of this Service Plan.
DRAFT – 7/5/18
8
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which the
District’s Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for
residential use. This maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31
of the year this Service Plan is approved by City Council
Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in
this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public
Improvements.
Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties
in the Service Area under an Approved Development Plan.
Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned
Development.
Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the District is authorized
by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve the future
taxpayers and inhabitants of the District, except as specifically limited in Section ??? of
this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the improvements
and infrastructure described in Exhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements.
Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City for
funding, in whole or part, by a Regional Mill Levy levied by the District, including, without
limitation, the public improvements described in Exhibit “F” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill tax imposed on Taxable Property for the
purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating
and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and
overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X. of this
Service Plan.
Service Area: means the property within the District Boundaries and the property in the
Inclusion Area Boundaries when it is added, in whole or part, to the District Boundaries.
Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as
amended.
Service Plan: means this service plan for the District approved by the City Council.
Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by
the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any
other applicable law.
State: means the State of Colorado.
Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the District Boundaries and
within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the District Boundaries that will
subject to the ad valorem taxes imposed by the District.
DRAFT – 7/5/18
9
Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit “G” and incorporated by
reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding
it.
III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION
The area of the District Boundaries includes approximately [Insert Number] acres and the
total area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately [Insert
Number] acres. A legal description and map of the District Boundaries are attached hereto as
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area
Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the
District’s Boundaries may expand or contract from time to time as the District undertakes
inclusions or exclusions pursuant to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in
this Service Plan. The location of the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as
Exhibit “G”.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION
A. Project and Planned Development.
[Please describe the nature of the Project and Planned Development, estimated population
at build out, timeline for development, estimated assessed value after 5 and 10 years and
estimated sales tax revenue. Also, please identify all plans, including but not limited to Citywide
Plans, Small Area Plans, and General Development Plans that apply to any portion of the
District’s Boundaries or Inclusion Area Boundaries and describe how the Project and Planned
Development are consistent with the applicable plans. Please state if the proposed District is to
be located within an urban renewal area and if the proposed development is anticipating the use
of tax increment financing (TIF). If the District intends to pursue TIF, please provide information
on how the TIF financing will interact with the District’s financing and how the necessary Public
Improvements will be shared across the two funding sources.]
Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the development of
any particular land-use for any specific area within the District. Any such approval must be contained
within an Approved Development Plan.
B. Public Benefits.
[Please described the public benefits to be delivered by the Service Plan that comply with
the requirements of the City’s Metro District Service Plan Policy.]
C. Assessed Valuation
The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately [Dollar Amount] and,
at build out, is expected to be [Dollar Amount]. These amounts are expected to be sufficient to
reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan.
V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA
DRAFT – 7/5/18
10
Other than the property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the District shall not add any
property to the Service Area without the City’s approval and in compliance with the Special
District Act.
VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE
The District’s Board shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible elector”
of the District as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End Users
who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the District’s Board as development
of the Service Area progresses. The District shall not enter into any agreement by which the End
Users’ electoral control of the Board is removed or diminished.
VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS
The District shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the
Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the
District Boundaries, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other
applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions,
restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan.
If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers
or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such
powers and authority shall be deemed to be a part hereof and available to or exercised by the
Districts upon prior resolution approval of the City Council approving the exercise of such powers
or authority by the District. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a Service Plan
Amendment.
A. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations
The District’s powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public
Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise its other powers and authority under the
Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as
hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall
constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all
remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII. of this Service Plan.:
1. Covenant Control Prohibition
The District is not authorized to impose, manage or provide covenant enforcement
actions.
2. Eminent Domain Restriction
The District shall not exercise its statutory power of eminent domain without first
obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the District’s
exercise of its eminent domain power is being voluntarily acquiesced to by the District
and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the District’s sovereign powers
and shall not negatively affect the District’s status as political subdivision of the State
as conferred by the Special District Act.
3. Fee Limitation
All Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, shall
be authorized to be imposed by the District upon all property within the District
DRAFT – 7/5/18
11
Boundaries only if such Fees are due and payable no later than upon the issuance of a
building permit by the City. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, this Fee limitation
shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation, maintenance, repair or
replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of the District, nor shall this
Fee limitation apply if the majority of the District’s Board is composed of End Users.
4. Operations and Maintenance
The primary purpose of the District is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop and finance the Public Improvements. The District shall dedicate
the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners’
association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City
Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The District
is specifically authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public
Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate
governmental entity. The District shall also be specifically authorized to conduct
operations and maintenance functions related to the Public Improvements that are not
provided by the City or other governmental entity, or to the extent that the District’s
proposed operational and maintenance functions included services or activities that
exceed those provided by the City or other governmental entity. Additionally, the
District shall be authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public
Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate
governmental entity until such time that the District dissolves.
5. Fire Protection Restriction
The District is not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless such
facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with
the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install,
relocate, redevelop, finance, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related
improvements installed as part of the water system shall not be limited by this
subsection.
6. Public Safety Services Restriction
The District is not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However,
the District may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security
services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City.
7. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction
The District shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United
States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the District to the
United States Government or the State.
8. Golf Course Construction Restriction
Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate
the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the District shall
not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop,
finance, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the City.
DRAFT – 7/5/18
12
9. Television Relay and Translation Restriction
The District is not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities and
services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction
project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written
approval from the City Manager.
10. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation
The District shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption in the City Code.
11. Sub-district Restriction
The District shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act without
the prior written approval of the City Manager.
12. Initial Debt Limitation
On or before the effective date of approval by the City of (a) an Approved Development
Plan that secures the Public Benefits described in Section IV.B of this Service Plan,
and/or (b) by an intergovernmental agreement between the District and the City further
securing the delivery of the Public Benefits described in Section IV.B, as necessary,
the District shall not: (i) issue any Debt; nor (ii) impose the Debt Mill Levy for the
payment of Debt by direct imposition or by transfer of funds from the operating fund
to the Debt service funds; nor (iii) impose and collect any Fees used for the purpose of
repayment of Debt.
13. Privately Placed Debt Limitation
Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the District shall obtain the
certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows:
We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of
the District’s Service Plan.
We [I] certify that (1) the net effective interest rate (calculated as
defined in C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the
designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax-
exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by
us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield
securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the Debt],
including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable
considering the financial circumstances of the District.
VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be constructed
and/or installed by the District. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public Improvements may
vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit H,
excluding any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to serve the Planned
Development, are approximately [Dollar Amount] in [Year] dollars and total approximately
[Dollar Amount] in the anticipated year of construction dollars. The cost estimates are based upon
preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements set forth
in Exhibit E and include all construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as
DRAFT – 7/5/18
13
land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the
anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as
Exhibit I. Changes in the Public Improvements or cost, which are approved by the City in an
Approved Development Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to
the preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing
and approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall
supersede the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements.
The design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will
be determined by the District to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned
Development and the availability of funding sources. The District may, in its discretion, phase the
construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer, delay,
reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion,
operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not
constitute a Service Plan Amendment. The District shall also be permitted to allocate costs between
such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in its discretion.
The Public Improvements shall be listed using an ownership and maintenance matrix in
Exhibit E, either individually or categorically, to identify the ownership and maintenance
responsibilities of the Public Improvements.
The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal
requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain
operation activities. Relating to these, the District shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Development Standards
The District shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in
accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental
entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The District directly, or indirectly through any
Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable
permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing such work.
Unless waived by the City, the District shall be required, in accordance with the City Code, to post
a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for any Public
Improvements to be constructed by the District. Such development security may be released when
the District has obtained funds, through Debt issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the
construction of the Public Improvements. Any limitation or requirement concerning the time
within which the City must review the District’s proposal or application for an Approved
Development Plan or other land use approval is hereby waived by the District.
B. Contracting
The District shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and
construction contracting.
C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance
The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the District from the
Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent
MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for improvements. Land,
easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens,
DRAFT – 7/5/18
14
encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to
conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at
no cost to the City, shall include an ALTA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the
environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites.
D. Equal Employment and Discrimination
In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the District shall not
discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging,
promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing
provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the District to accomplish the purposes of
this Service Plan.
E. Public Art Requirement
The District shall initiate and implement a public art program as currently set forth in
Article XII of City Municipal Code Chapter 23, as amended, or any similar ordinances hereafter
adopted by the City Council.
IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT
This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and
financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements. This section also describes the
District’s obligation to help finance certain Regional Improvements.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the District
shall not be authorized to impose any taxes and Fees for any purpose unless and until (a) the
District and/or the Developer has obtained an Approved Development Plan that secures the Public
Benefits described in Section IV.B of this Service Plan, or (b) the City and District, at the City’s
option, have entered into an intergovernmental agreement securing the delivery of the Public
Benefits described in Section IV.B Failure to comply with this provision shall constitute a material
modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to all remedies available at law and
in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan.
A. Financial Plan
The District’s Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference, reflects
the District’s anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of
the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the
District derived from District mill levies, Fees imposed by the District, specific ownership taxes,
and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the
provisions of this Section IX.
Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of
Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development
assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan
DRAFT – 7/5/18
15
anticipates that the District will acquire, construct, and complete all Public Improvements needed
to serve the Service Area.
The Financial Plan demonstrates that the District will have the financial ability to discharge
all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore, the District
will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an opinion as to
whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the District at the time of issuance.
B. Mill Levies
It is anticipated that the District will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy
on all property within the Service Area. In doing so, the following shall apply:
1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum
The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum, which is fifty (50) mills.
2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies
The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy
Maximum.
3. Operating Mill Levy
The District may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to fifty (50) mills until the
District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, the
District’s Operating Mill Levy shall cannot exceed ten (10) mills at any point.
4. Assessed Value and Mill Levies
At such time as the Debt is equal to or less than fifty percent (50%) of the District’s
assessed valuation of Taxable Property, either on the date of issuance or at any time
thereafter, the Debt Mill Levy to be imposed to pay on the Debt, shall not be subject to
the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum and may be unlimited as to rate and may be levied
at the rate necessary to pay the Debt service on such Debt, provided however that the
District shall not issue additional Debt that would cause the aggregate Debt to exceed
fifty percent (50%) of the District’s Taxable Property then assessed value. For the
purposes of the forgoing, the District may provide that such Debt shall remain secured
by such unlimited mill levy, notwithstanding any subsequent change in the District’s
Debt to assessed valuation ratio. All Debt issued by the District must otherwise be
issued in compliance with the requirements of the Special District Act, this Service
Plan and all other applicable State law.
5. Gallagher Adjustments
In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable
Property changes after approval of this Service Plan, the District’s Aggregate Mill
Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum,
amounts herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such
increases or decreases shall be determined by the District’s Board in good faith so that
to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted,
are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change.
6. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges
DRAFT – 7/5/18
16
Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that
exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall
not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has
been approved by a Service Plan Amendment.
7. Refunding Debt
The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding
purposes if: (1) a majority of the District Board is composed of End Users and have
voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding will
result in a net present value savings as set forth in C.R.S. Section 11-56-101 et seq.
8. Maximum Debt Authorization
The District anticipates approximately [Dollar Amount] in project costs in [Year]
dollars as set forth in Exhibit E, and anticipate issuing approximately [Dollar Amount]
in Debt to pay such costs as set forth in Exhibit J, which Debt issuance amount shall
be the amount of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The District shall not issue Debt
in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts must seek prior resolution
approval by the City Council to issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt
Authorization to pay the actual costs of the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit
E plus inflation, contingencies and other unforeseen expenses associated with such
Public Improvements. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a material
modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment so long as
increases are reasonably related to the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit E and
any Approved Development Plan.
C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount
The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued.
The maximum interest rate on any Debt is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The
maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply with
all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other applicable State law
and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities.
D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification
The District shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the
market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payed by the
District as part of a Debt financing transaction. The District shall provide this written opinion to
the City before issuing any Debt based on it.
E. Disclosure to Purchasers
The District will use reasonable efforts to assure that all Developers provide written notice
to all purchasers of property in the District notifying them of the District’s existing mill levies, the
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and of the District’s authority to impose and collect
Fees. The form of notice shall be filed with the City prior to the initial issuance of the Debt of the
District imposing the mill levy which is the subject of the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition
Term.
F. External Financial Advisor
DRAFT – 7/5/18
17
An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the District to provide a written opinion
as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the District once the total amount of Debt
exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial Advisor is to provide advice to
the District Board regarding the proposed terms and whether Debt conditions are reasonable based
upon the status of development within the District, the projected tax base increase in the District,
the security offered and other considerations as may be identified by the Advisor. The District
shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction, or other appropriate financing
documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the External Financial Advisor
providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the Advisor’s opinion that the
cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature, couponing, credit spreads, payment,
closing date, and other material transaction details of the proposed Debt serve the best interest of
the District.
Debt shall not be undertaken by the District if found to be unreasonable by the External
Financial Advisor.
G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers
District Debt shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
“By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and
consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the
principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution
of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the
Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt
of the City of Fort Collins”
Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and
interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the
offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property
within the Service Area.
H. Security for Debt
The District shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the
indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed
as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the District’s obligations; nor shall anything in the
Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in
the event of default by the District in the payment of any such obligation.
I. TABOR Compliance
The District shall comply with the provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X,
§ 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”). In the discretion of the Board, the District may set
up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and
programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain under the
control of the District’s Board.
J. District’s Operating Costs
The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and
administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial
DRAFT – 7/5/18
18
operations, are anticipated to be [Dollar Amount], which will be eligible for reimbursement from
Debt proceeds.
In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require
operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated
and maintained. The first year’s operating budget is estimated to be [Dollar Amount].
Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property
taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy not to exceed ten (10) mills as
set forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as other revenues legally available to the District.
X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
The District shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding,
construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to
the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the District shall impose a
Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the District under the following terms:
A. Regional Mill Levy Authority.
The District shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five (5)
mills as part of the District’s initial TABOR election.
B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition.
The District shall impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills within
one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the District requesting the imposition
of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed.
C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements.
Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be
constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to
property owners within the Service Area. The City shall require that planned developments that (i)
are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional Improvement also impose
a Regional Milly Levy, to the extent possible.
D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.
If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public
improvements that the District would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re-
design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law.
E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues.
Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as follows:
1. Intergovernmental Agreement
If the City and the District have executed an intergovernmental agreement
concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill
Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement;
2. No Intergovernmental Agreement
DRAFT – 7/5/18
19
If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the District and the City, then
the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the
City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating,
redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users
of the District as prioritized and determined by the City.
F. Regional Mill Levy Term.
The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years
from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed.
G. Completion of Regional Improvements.
All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year
Regional Mill Levy term.
H. City Authority to Require Imposition.
The City’s authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy shall
expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the District first imposes a Debt
Mill Levy.
I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.
The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the
Aggregate Mill Levy.
J. Gallagher Adjustment.
In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of
approval of this Service Plan, the Regional Mill Levy may be increased or shall be decreased to
reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the District in good faith
so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as
adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change.
XI. CITY FEES
The District shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code.
XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS
All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those
pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and
Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve
this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be
set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii)
are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or governmental
powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are
also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy
law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section
943(b)(6).
DRAFT – 7/5/18
20
XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS
A. General
The District shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no later
than September 1st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the
District has been issued.
B. Report Requirements
Unless waived by the City Manager, the District annual report must include the following
in the Annual Report:
1. Narrative
A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service
Plan for the report year.
2. Financial Statements
Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the
Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for
the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as
of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and
expenditures) for the report year.
3. Capital Expenditures
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements
in the report year.
4. Financial Obligations
Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary
of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the
amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued
in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the
Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill
levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year.
5. Other Information
Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Manager.
C. Reporting of Significant Events
The annual report shall include information as to any of the following that occurred during
the report year:
1. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District Boundaries as of December
31 of the report year.
DRAFT – 7/5/18
21
2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered
into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year.
3. Copies of the District’s rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to
the District’s rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year.
4. A summary of any litigation which involves the District’s Public Improvements
as of December 31 of the report year.
5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report
year.
6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond
a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
7. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in
accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety
(90) day period.
D. Failure to Submit
In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully
responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District Board at its last known address.
The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of
such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan,
at the discretion of the City Manager.
XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances.
The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the District to provide
required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for
numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making
up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of
the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs consistent with
the then-current Approved Development Plans for the Project. Any action of the District which is
a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided in
in Section XV below or any other applicable provision of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be
a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service
Plan. All other departures from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-
by-case basis as to whether such departures are a material modification under this Service Plan or
the Special District Act.
XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS
Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S.
Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action
of the District that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless
otherwise provided in this Service Plan.
Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service
Plan Amendment include, without limitation:
DRAFT – 7/5/18
22
1. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to
the taxpayers of the District;
2. Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or
acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service,
function or facility authorized in the Service Plan;
3. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a
facility required by the Service Plan;
4. Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this
Service Plan.
Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation
changes in quantities of improvements, facilities or equipment; immaterial cost differences; and
actions expressly authorized in this Service Plan.
XVI. DISSOLUTION
Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which the
District was created have been accomplished, the District shall file a petition in district court for
dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the
District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other
financial obligations as required pursuant to State law.
XVII. SANCTIONS
Should the District undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council resolution
approval as required in this Service Plan or that constitutes a material modification to this Service
Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under the Special Districts Act,
the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate:
1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act;
2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other
administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District’s
development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services;
3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement
under which the District is in default; or
4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including
seeking injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law.
XVIII. CONCLUSION
It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes
that:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area
to be served by the District;
2. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the District is inadequate for
present and projected needs;
DRAFT – 7/5/18
23
3. The District is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service
Area; and
4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The District agrees to incorporate the City Council’s resolution of approval, including any
conditions on any such approval, into the Service Plan presented to the District Court for and in
Larimer County, Colorado.
Metro District Service Plan Review Process
Revised: June 2018
Key Concepts:
▪ Community Benefit/Outcome Area – The benefit/outcome corresponding to the portion of the
Metro District Service Plan review policy on which the applicant is requesting consideration (See
the Metro District Policy for additional details). The benefit/outcome areas are listed below with
the corresponding lead department and executive:
Benefit/Outcome Lead Department(s) Executive Sponsor
Environmental
Sustainability Outcomes
Environmental Services, or
Utilities (Various)
Chief Sustainability Officer, or
Utilities Executive Director (or designee)
Critical Public
Infrastructure
Engineering,
Streets, or
Utilities (Various)
Director PDT (or designee), or
Utilities Executive Director (or designee)
Smart Growth
Management
CDNS Director PDT (or designee)
Strategic Priorities Various Various
Process Phases:
▪ Letter of Intent (LOI) – First phase of the Metro District Service Plan Review process and shall
contain (see Policy for specifics):
o Summary narrative of the proposed development and Metro District purpose
o Sketch plan of the proposed district, showing: property locations and boundaries,
surrounding land uses, proposed use(s), proposed improvements, existing natural
features, utility locations, and photographs (if helpful)
o District need justification
o Explanation of public benefit and plan to assure delivery by the District
o District proposal and Service Plan specifics
▪ Service Plan Application Review – Key phase of Metro District Service Plan Review process,
including:
o Formal application submittal by applicant (see Policy and Application for details)
o Third-Party financial review (if needed) of the Service Plan financial plan assumptions
and feasibility
o Formal staff review and meetings with applicant
o Council Finance Review based on completed analysis by staff and third-parties –
includes a formal recommendation by staff of alignment with existing policy
o Council work session (if needed) to review specifics of a proposed Service Plan)
o City Council consideration – final step, all Service Plans require Council approval
▪ Compliance/Annual Review/Amendments – By statute and the City’s policy each existing Metro
District must submit an annual report (see policy for specifics) to be reviewed by the Metro
District Lead; Amendments will be initially reviewed by the Metro District Lead
ATTACHMENT 3
Key Roles:
▪ Interdisciplinary Team – Provide initial review of all Letters of Intent submitted to the City for
consideration; provide on-going review and support of the existing policy, and recommend
participants for a project team associated with each Service Plan submittal
o Team Members – The Metro District Coordinator and representatives from Finance,
Planning, Development, and Transportation (PDT), City Attorney’s Office (CAO), and
Utilities (See the Interdisciplinary Team Charter for additional Details
▪ Metro District Lead – Responsible for managing the overall timeline and review of a specific
Service Plan request, including City Council review (Council Finance and City Council meetings);
negotiation and review of the Service Plan itself – ensuring alignment with policy; and
coordination of third-party reviews (financial and engineering, as needed)
o Redevelopment Coordinator – (Economic Health) acts in this role on all Service Plans
submitted to the City
▪ Project Co-Lead – Leads review of Community Benefit/Outcome being delivered by a proposed
Service Plan; responsible for ensuring City obtains assurance of benefit/outcome delivery;
makes the final recommendation to Council on the benefit/outcome
o Subject Matter Expert – Recommended by the interdisciplinary team from the lead
department for the given benefit/outcome (See Key Concepts for details)
▪ Project Team – Review a specific Service Plan request for alignment and delivery of Community
Benefit/Outcomes, provide quality control of third-party analyses, and make final
recommendation to Council
o Team Members – Lead by the Metro District Lead and Project Co-Lead; assigned by the
Interdisciplinary Team
▪ Executive Sponsor – Provides oversight for consistency with Citywide objectives, engages at
“bookends and milestones” and provides final approval of Service Plan terms
o Varies – generally the Executive Lead Team member that oversees the area in which the
specific community benefit/outcome is being delivered by the project
▪ Subject Matter Experts – Provide expertise in a specific subject matter relevant to the review of
a given proposed Service Plan, may include members of a variety of departments
o Varies – determined during the project team formation process; selected in consultation
with the Director overseeing the department with the desired subject matter expertise
▪ Legal Support – Provides legal review of the Service Plan on behalf of the City and Council;
provides a final recommendation regarding the legal aspects of a Service Plan proposal
o City Attorney – An attorney assigned to the project by the CAO
▪ Financial Support (If Needed) – Provides financial review of the Service Plan on behalf of the
City and Council; provides a recommendation regarding the financial impacts on the City
o Finance Representative – A representative from the Finance Department assigned by
the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Process Map:
Developer Staff Council
Submit LOI
Interdisciplinary
Team Review
Comments
Recommend
Interdisciplinary
Team Review
Comments
District
Formation
Council Finance
Review
Recommend
Council
Approval
Recommend
NO
NO
YES
Submit
Application
YES
YES
YES
NO
Project Team Charter
Metro District Service Plan Review – Interdisciplinary Team
Project Team Name:
Metro District Service Plan Review -
Interdisciplinary Team
Strategic Goal:
Economic Health &
High Performing Government
Project Lead: Josh Birks
Date: May 24, 2018
Project Statement:
The City has seen a rise in the number of Metropolitan District (Metro District) applications submitted
for Council Consideration. Between 2008 and 2017, staff facilitated the review of four Metro District
applications. Thus far in 2018 alone, the City has received four Metro District applications with an
additional three to four anticipated for the fall 2018 election. Furthermore, market signals suggest that
this increase in Metro District applications will continue:
1. Growing scarcity of land and water resources in the community – applying pressure to
construction costs and thus housing prices; and
2. Increasing pressure from the development community in response to market pressures
impacting land price and construction costs to enable the use of Metro Districts for residential
development.
The City of Fort Collins adopted a Policy Concerning Approval of Metro Districts Service Plans in 2008.
The policy was adopted in response to requests to consider the use of Metro Districts by several
developers. This policy was reviewed and updated by City Council in 2018. The revised policy supports
the use of Metro Districts for residential development, if such development delivers on one or more
community benefit identified in the policy.
Business Case:
In response, to changing conditions and market pressure, a revised Policy has been adopted by City
council. The new policy identified a new process for reviewing and evaluating proposed Metro District
Service Plans that include residential development. The new process addresses several current
deficiencies in the City’s review of Metro District Service plans, including:
1. A haphazard approach without a clear project lead and ambiguous staff roles;
2. Impacts to staff work load without warning and unclear deadlines; and
3. Inconsistency in analysis and evaluation of proposed Metro District Service plans.
Therefore, the revised policy describes a process that includes the formation of an interdisciplinary
team to review all Service Plans submitted to the City. In addition, the policy outlines a multistep
process intended to optimize the investment of staff time.
ATTACHMENT 4
Economic Health Office
Project Plan Page 2 7/2/2018
Measureable Objectives
1. Time to review a proposed Service Plan and obtain Council Review (Target: 120 days)
2. Contain Project Management and Third-Party Review Costs to collected fees
3. Manage unreimbursed staff time and engagement to a minimum, excluding project specific
“consulting” staff time (Target: 4 hours per month)
Other objectives
1. Develop and adhere to specific Service Plan review timelines
a. Commit to specific turn-around timelines at each phase of the process
b. Adhering to these timelines creates clarity for internal staff and external customers
2. Manage staff work load impacts
a. Clarity of role and expectation for each member of the interdisciplinary team; and
b. Clarity of role and expectation for each member of a Service Plan review team
3. Clarity of Service Plan review cost and budget coverage, including:
a. Any outside counsel expenses,
b. Third-party review expenses (e.g., Financial Plans, Improvement Plans, etc.), and
c. Project management expenses (EHO will provide all project management).
4. Improved customer service
a. Greater clarity regarding Service Plan requirements
b. Clear timelines and turnaround commitments
5. Deliver increased community benefits from adopted/supported Service Plans
Scope – Team Roles
The Interdisciplinary team will perform several roles, including:
1. Letter of Intent Review – The team will review all Letters of Intent submitted by developers to
the City for consideration of a Metro District Service Plan, the review will include:
a. An evaluation of the proposal for consistency with the adopted Policy,
b. Comments regarding the projects delivery of community benefit and approach to
Metro District use, and
c. A recommendation on whether to proceed with the application for a Service Plan
approval by City Council.
2. Project Team Formation – The team will recommend participants for a project team
associated with each Letter of Intent that is recommend proceed to Service Plan submittal.
3. Policy Review & Support – Finally, the team will provide on-going review and support of the
existing policy by recommending changes to the policy when needed or warranted.
Economic Health Office
Project Plan Page 3 7/2/2018
Team Members and Role by department:
EXECUTIVE SPONSOR
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
PROJECT TEAM (Interdisciplinary Review Team)
Josh Birks (EHO - Project Director) John Duval (CAO)
Patrick Rowe (EHO - Project Manager) Theresa Connor (Utilities)
Travis Storin (Finance) Various, as needed
Tom Leeson (PDT)
Time Frames/Meeting Frequency
The team will meet several times throughout the year being mindful to meet only when necessary:
▪ Letter of Intent Review – The team will meet as needed to review letters of intent from
applicants wishing to request Council approval of a Service Plan – given that eligible TABOR
elections for metro districts either occur once or twice a year these meetings will likely occur
between with similar frequency.
▪ Policy Review – The team should meet at least twice a year to discuss the current policy and
process to determine if changes to either are needed or required by statute – these meetings
might be best scheduled after the eligible TABOR election(s) each year to reflect on the
recently completed review process.
▪ Ad Hoc – The team may meet at other times during the year to provide guidance to a project
team evaluating a specific Service Plan application or for any other purpose they deem
necessary.
High Level Risks:
▪ Limited availability of Interdisciplinary Team Members
▪ Sense of urgency
▪ Uncertainty regarding political will to execute on the new policy
Constraints:
▪ Need to develop and refine the new process while continuing to review and process Metro
District applications
▪ Urgency to respond to existing applications by the November 2018 election – and the
associated timeline
▪ Need to refine the method for delivering on defined community benefits
Assets/Opportunities:
▪ Policy allowed fees and expense reimbursement
▪ Existing experience and expertise on staff
▪ Commitment from “typically” impacted departments to improve the existing process
Economic Health Office
Project Plan Page 4 7/2/2018
Project Manager Assigned and Authority Level
Patrick Rowe shall be the project manager and has the authority to request team members and will
work with Management to secure any necessary resources to complete the project.
Cost/Budget/Financial Assumptions:
Key costs include: labor costs of project manager/lead, third-party review expenses (including outside
counsel), and staff time of interdisciplinary team members.
Project Sponsor Authorization:
_________________________________________
Josh Birks, Economic Health &
Redevelopment Director
________________________________________
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENT 5
Ken Summers; question that basically says - without changing your tax rate - tax has been in place for all of this
time - expectation – factor in population growth over the last 10 years - we can’t totally eliminate it – growth -
increased level of service.
Ross Cunniff; wasn’t in the ballot language but the understanding of most of Council Members at that time as
well as community members who participated in the committee to pass was that it would be a lower number
when it came back.
Mayor Troxell; I like the conversation - dialing in - the balancing - the 2.75 - I am ok with some limited taxing on
groceries and the timeframe - I like what has been laid out - maybe we should look at an update on the cost of
government that we have been tracking before.
Darin Atteberry; do you think we can pull some of that macro level work together before May?
Ginny Sawyer; yes, we can do that
Darin Atteberry; let’s look at developing some real scenarios - thinking through what base rate increases -
Ken was talking about police, fire and streets - there is a policy debate around what is an essential service - is it
police and fire? That conversation needs to be had - It would be good to start putting some meat around some
real scenarios - real dollars - getting some feedback - preface to all of is just to provide conversation to take to
the community to process.
Ross Cunniff; Legacy project - structure of city’s finances - is the Legacy project
Darin Atteberry; how do we continue the legacy? how do we insure that our successors continue to have the
AAA bond rating? How on earth would a community have an expiring street tax? I prefer more predictable - into
perpetuity – but if that is what works in this community – street maintenance going to the voters is not a
scenario you see very often.
Ken Summers; things change - attitudes change over time - these have been renewed over and over -not sure of
the dynamics - in terms of where we are at today - the size / citizen expectations - quality of life - what is
reasonable while we have retained a well-run frugal organization - lots of fiscal responsibility
Darin Atteberry; expiring taxes keep us accountable
E. Metro District Policy
Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Coordinator
Josh Birks, Economic Health Office Director
Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and consider changes to the City policy concerning Title 32 Metropolitan
Districts to increase alignment with City goals and objectives and introduce other process improvements.
ATTACHMENT 6
24
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does the committee support the direction of the Metropolitan District draft policy?
• What input/direction does the committee have on the policy?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Metropolitan Districts (Districts) are an important public financing tool which can be used reasonably and judicially
in service of public outcomes and benefits. Outcomes range from the provisioning of missing and critical public
infrastructure, to enabling sustainability outcomes (such as affordable housing, green improvements) and high
quality smart growth (mixed-use, multimodal oriented, increased density, compelling public spaces, etc.).
As part of updating the 2008 policy, staff suggests revisions with the following goals:
• Incorporate the latest best practices and take account of legal changes – the current policy was adopted in
2008 and could benefit from updating;
• Introduce greater process rigor and qualitative criteria to improve screening and evaluation – the current
policy offers little guidance on the meaning of “enhanced benefits” and how this should be assessed;
• Modify the policy to allow and account for residential uses – the current policy only allows for projects that
are predominately commercial (greater than 90% by assessed value). Following the policy precludes
residential outcomes that the City may wish to support, such as those that contribute to critical regional
infrastructure improvements, affordable housing, green improvements, high quality smart growth, and
other outcomes.
In understanding the purpose of the Metropolitan District Policy, it’s important to note that the policy does not
govern or limit, in any way, City Council’s decision-making authority on District formation. However, it is an
important guidance document for staff and the development community, and may have instructive value for
Council. An updated Policy can provide clearer guidance on the public benefits the City is willing to consider a
District for, and will inform how proposals are processed and evaluated.
Prior Council Work Sessions
City Council had two work sessions on Districts in 2017. The first was focused on providing basic information on the
purpose and innerworkings of Districts. The second was focused on laying out concepts for potential revisions to the
policy.
Out of these work sessions staff received many useful comments, some of which are summarized below:
• Reserve metro district use for “stretch outcomes” (outcomes that are hard to achieve). Affordable housing,
in particular, resonated as a stretch outcome. Also, social equity was mentioned as an outcome of interest.
• Interest was expressed to preserve the prescriptive elements of the current policy.
• Lack of interest in using Districts to facilitate amenities (pools, golf courses, community centers, etc.).
Incorporating these comments, staff prepared the attached draft policy (Attachment X). The first section of the
policy document, Policy Statements and Objectives, is the focus of this item, though the other sections are also
important.
Note: The draft policy is a work in progress. Staff’s aim was to include and flesh out the most important concepts.
Additionally, staff proposes the use of a model service plan; many policy provisions will reside within this document,
though staff attempted to highlight the most important of these provisions within the policy itself. The model service
plan would be included as an attachment to the final policy document.
25
Proposed Key Policy Provisions
1. Limited Use. The City wishes to exact a high standard of use for Districts, thereby limiting their use. The
policy makes it clear that an applicant is expected to deliver extraordinary benefits across multiple District
outcome areas (Sustainability, Infrastructure, and High Quality/Smart Growth).
2. Residential Use. The current policy largely precludes residential uses (limiting District use to projects that
are 90% or more commercial by assessed value). The revised policy allows residential use, but only if/when
Districts are delivering extraordinary outcomes. In all cases, Council is the arbiter of this, however, with a
revised policy the City communicates more clearly in what instances a residential district may be considered.
3. Evaluation Process. The draft policy better defines desired City outcomes and stipulates a process whereby
an interdisciplinary staff team will evaluate District proposals using a triple bottom line approach and
against appropriate planning documents (City Plan, Strategic Plan, Climate Action Plan, and others).
4. Bias against Use for Basic Improvements. Both the prior and the draft policies speak to District use of basic
improvements, and generally in similar terms. In both cases the City expresses a bias against use for basic
improvements, except when funding such improvements is used to offset costs and enable extraordinary
outcomes.
5. Mill Levy Maximum. The existing policy specifies a combined max mill levy rate of 40 mills for both debt
service and operations and maintenance. Consistent with a majority of communities around the front
range, the proposed policy increases the max to 50 mills.
Next Steps
Based on Council Finance feedback, staff will continue with policy and model service plan development with the
intent to bring a complete draft to the June 26 Council Work Session.
Discussion / Next Steps:
Josh Birks; high degree of due diligence - clear direction from Council - City Council will always be the approving
authority - Key Policy Points – a new step in the process is a Letter of Intent on the front end to make sure it is
applicable.
Ross Cunniff; feedback - big picture - concern - they can be used as a way to simply raise taxes - that is the
context - the 40-50 change is significant - real problem comes in when it starts to be people’s houses - I would
prefer not to tax residential at a higher rate - not to enable high degree of residential components unless the
outcome is tied to housing affordability - get more specific about what those stretch goals are – I anticipate
dozens of these coming forward - we need to recover costs / staffing to that extent our policy needs to be very
clear - this money is not refundable - your fees are non-refundable - we will do the work and will give it a fair
hearing - this is our policy.
Josh Birks; we have look at other communities and how they manage their fees and Denver is doing a great job –
a portion of fee is a fee for consideration - an application fee and is not in any way tied to an outcome
Ross Cunniff; especially staffing costs - an approved plan - based on some proportion of residential - If your
proposal - Two examples were largely commercial - there was a residential component
Josh Birks; both were much larger than the current policy allows
26
We have a policy that states there is a max mill levy maybe tied to a schedule - if you are predominantly
residential vs predominantly commercial sort of examples of what that might look like.
Ken Summers; policy is mostly directed to commercial - our current mill levy cap is 40 - Do other communities
apply the 50 across the board?
Josh Birks; yes
Ken Summers; is there a tendency to ask for the higher? How is that in terms of service plan? I would like to give
staff some flexibility but also eliminate too many appeals which create costs. I can see Ross’ point - Industrial
business development mill levy max as opposed to a residential. If we said 50 across the board
we have to approve service plans - would we have to approve something at 50 even if we felt it wasn’t justified?
Josh Birks; Council can always approve or deny or conditionally approve service plans
Ken Summers: I don’t know if it makes sense to go 40 or 50 - I am hoping that we don’t see a big trend toward
special districts - they can be problematic especially when used by developers - it is one thing if citizens in an
area are voting themselves - taxing themselves by a collective vote - opposed to developers coming in - that
becomes the voting base as opposed to 200 people - 5 people who create the special district and force it on
future residents
Josh Birks; one of the challenges we face as a community is that the market is moving in the direction where
they want to use special districts more - we are seeing that in our surrounding areas -the market and the
development community will be coming to us saying they want to use them.
Ross Cunniff; provides more intimate connection to the taxes they pay and the services they receive - making a
developer’s life easier it is not a compelling reason.
Josh Birks; we need better clarity - we have gotten a bit into the position where we are legislating more by
exception than we are by policy so we need to clarify ourselves and for the market as to how we are going to
use this tool.
Ross Cunniff; share a concern on the residential aspect
Ken Summers; maybe for the next work session, have here is the 50 mils across the board - the commercial rate
versus what we think is reasonable for residential mill levy cap
Ross Cunniff; specific outcomes - housing - energy districts - small - clarity would help - be more specific with the
outcome.
Meeting adjourned
1
Metro District Policy Discussion
Josh Birks and Tom Leeson
7-10-18
ATTACHMENT 7
Questions for Council
§ Does the Council support the recommended
amendments to the Metropolitan Districts draft
policy?
2
Policy Context
Historic:
§ Adopted in 2008
§ Market Conditions
§ Rising infrastructure costs
§ Increased competition from
adjacent communities
§ Developer Request
§ Leveling of the playing field
Current:
§ Market Conditions
§ Rising construction costs
§ Constrained land supply
§ Limited access to key resources
(e.g., water)
§ Developer Request
§ Requesting clarity of objectives
3
Objective: Clarify Key Community Benefits to Achieve
Introduction
4
10/24/17 Work
Session
• Foundational information on
purpose and innerworkings
11/28/17 Work
Session
• Conceptual Policy
Revisions
03/19/18
Finance
Committee
• Working Draft
Policy
Today
November Work Session Summary
§ Limit Use and reserve for stretch outcomes
§ Preserve prescriptive elements
§ Lack of interest in facilitating development amenities
(pools, golf courses, etc.)
§ Benefits must be specifically defined
5
Policy Comparison – Key Provisions
Old New
Mill Levy Caps 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit 40 years Removed (Plan Specific)
Citizen Control As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
90% to 10% N/A
6
Public Benefits
Environmental
Sustainability
GHG Reduction
Water/Energy
Conservation
Multimodal
Transportation
Enhance Resiliency
Increase Renewable
Capacity
Critical Public
Infrastructure
Existing significant
infrastructure
challenges
On-site
Off-site
Smart Growth
Management
Increase density
Walkability/Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Availability of Transit
Public Spaces
Mixed-Use
Strategic
Priorities
Affordable Housing
Infill/Redevelopment
Economic Health
Outcomes
7
Regional Improvements
Optional Mill Levy
Max – 5.00 Mills
Max 25 Years
At City Request
Service Plan
Identifies Types of
Improvements
Creates method for
initiating
Requires disclosure
IGA
Specifies
improvement
Specifies length of
collection
Creates contractual
obligation
8
OPTIONAL
Review Process
9
Developer Staff Council
Submit LOI
Interdisciplinary
Team Review
Comments
Recommend
Interdisciplinary
Team Review
Comments
District
Formation
Council Finance
Review
Recommend
Council
Approval
Recommend
NO
NO
YES
Submit
Application
YES
YES
YES
NO
Evaluation Framework/Criteria
§ Triple Bottom Line Scan
§ Financial Assessment
§ Policy Evaluation
§ Interdisciplinary Staff
Review
10
Performance Assurances
§ Development Agreements
§ Service Plan
§ Restrict Powers:
§ Mill Levy
§ Debt Issuance
§ Others
Photo Credit: Congress for New Urbanism 11
Final Authority
City Council retains
final approval
authority over all
Service Plans.
12
Revised Fees
Old:
§ LOI – N/A
§ Application - $2,000
§ Other Expenses
§ Annual – $0
§ Amendment - $250
New:
§ LOI - $2,500
§ Application - $7,500
§ Other Expenses
§ Non-Model Service Plan -
$5,000
§ Annual - $500 = $250 per
§ Amendment - $2,500
13
Objective: No City costs or negative staff impacts
Next Steps
§ August 21st – City Council Consideration of Revised Policy
§ September 1st – Effective Date of new Policy
§ September 4th – Consideration of Service Plans for Districts wishing
to hold a November 2018 election
§ Waterfield
§ Montava
§ Water’s Edge
§ Others
14
15
Does the Council support the recommended
amendments to the Metropolitan Districts draft policy?
Old New
Mill Levy Caps 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit 40 years Removed (Plan Specific)
Citizen Control As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
90% to 10% N/A