HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/24/2017 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial
711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
October 24, 2017
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle Appropriation Requests. (staff: Mark Sears,
Kurt Friesen; 20 minute staff presentation; 90 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review potential appropriation requests for Natural Areas and Parks
and Park Planning & Development projects, as part of the 2018 Budget Revision process. These
projects include:
Item 1 - Natural Areas Maintenance Facility Expansion
Item 2 - Community Park Development
Item 3 - East District Park Maintenance Facility
At the request of City Council at the September 26 City Council Work Session, more detail and
rationale for a 2018 budget revision request is provided for these projects.
2. Realigned Lemay and Suniga-the existing Lemay Avenue/Vine Drive Intersection and the realigned
Lemay Avenue/Suniga Road Intersection. (staff: Chad Crager, Tim Kemp; 10 minute staff
presentation; 1 hour discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update Council of the project status for realigned Lemay Avenue and
Suniga Road; and more specifically to present information regarding:
Railroad switching yard relocation
Bridge versus at-grade solutions
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Project funding
Collaboration with the Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) project
Public outreach
Staff has been working on addressing Council questions over the past 14 months, in response to
Council feedback from the August 23, 2016 Work Session. The Lemay Avenue realignment and
intersection improvements have been prioritized as the City’s #1 Transportation Capital Improvement
Project. The improvements will construct a new roadway (realigned Lemay) from Lincoln Avenue to
Conifer Street, and a new intersection slightly northeast of the existing Vine Drive and Lemay
Avenue intersection. The City has utilized an extensive planning process over the past 25 years to
plan for the proposed right-of-way and utility corridor alignments, regional stormwater improvements,
and multi-modal connectivity.
3. Metropolitan District Policy Changes. (Part One) (staff: Patrick Rowe, Josh Birks; 12 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review and consider changes to the City policy concerning Service
Plans for Title 32 Metropolitan (Metro) Districts to better align City policy with desired outcomes. This
is part one of a two part discussion. Part One will emphasize how metro districts function and how
other communities are utilizing metro districts.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
October 24, 2017
Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle Appropriation Requests.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review potential appropriation requests for Natural Areas and Parks and Park
Planning & Development projects, as part of the 2018 Budget Revision process. These projects include:
Item 1 - Natural Areas Maintenance Facility Expansion
Item 2 - Community Park Development
Item 3 - East District Park Maintenance Facility
At the request of City Council at the September 26 City Council Work Session, more detail and rationale for a
2018 budget revision request is provided for these projects.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does City Council support consideration of the appropriation of funds for these projects as outlined?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
ITEM 1 - NATURAL AREAS MAINTENANCE FACILITY EXPANSION
A Natural Areas Department Campus Site Master Plan has been developed for the Natural Areas Department.
The Plan identifies facilities that will ensure the ability of the City to manage its natural areas portfolio for several
decades into the future. The proposed budget revision provides funding for key elements of the Plan and focuses
on field-based operations. The request is for $1,420,000 (in addition to the original approved budget of
$1,450,000). The funds are available from the Natural Areas fund balance.
The revised budget includes:
A basic 5,000 square foot vehicle and equipment storage building to store the equivalent of 8 large
weather sensitive vehicles
A shop remodel and 1,200 square foot shop addition to provide appropriately sized basic restrooms,
showers, locker rooms, a breakroom, tool room, and wood shop
An expansion of the equipment yard to provide for existing needs and 30 years of growth
Rooftop solar panels to provide a net-positive energy for the shop expansion project
A diesel and gasoline fueling station to reduce carbon footprint and increase productivity
Roof fall protection as required on all new City buildings.
The existing shop and equipment yard were built in 2002, when there was fewer than 10 natural areas field staff
managing 5,000 acres. The facilities were intended to serve for 15 years. Today, with an active field season staff
of over 40 that manages 36,000 acres, the Natural Areas has outgrown the shop and equipment yard. Based on
current projections, the City will continue to add an estimated 500 acres of natural area every year for the
foreseeable future. Larger and more sophisticated facilities are needed to meet current and growing stewardship
needs for the next several decades and to improve productivity and reduce energy use.
1
Packet Pg. 3
October 24, 2017 Page 2
The construction plans are almost complete, Natural Areas funds are available and set aside, the contractor has
been hired, and if Council approves the budget increase for this much-needed shop expansion the construction
will start in January and be complete by end of September.
Alternative Funding Options
In addition to staff's recommended approach, two additional funding options are available. Both of these
alternatives are feasible; however, they will result in additional costs as well as other inefficiencies.
Option 1
Use existing budget to construct Phase I in 2018 and take Phase II through the BFO process for construction in
2019.
2018 - Construct shop remodel, 1,200 SF expansion and new fuel station. $1,450,000
2019 - Construct vehicle storage building and equipment yard expansion. $1,620,000
Total Construction Costs $3,070,000
Additional Cost $ 200,000
Option 2
Take total project through the 2019-2020 BFO process for approval and start the project in 2019.
Total Cost Estimated for 2019 Construction $3,110,000
Additional Cost $ 240,000
Rationale for Mid-Year Appropriation
The original design and construction budget of $1,450,000 was prepared for the 2017-18 BFO process in the
spring of 2016 using a conceptual design and without the help of a professional cost estimator. As design
charrettes were held with key Natural Areas and Operations Services staff, long-term business needs were more
thoroughly identified. In addition, objectives associated with the City’s Climate Action Plan goals, certain ADA
requirements, and other City-related objectives and requirements were better characterized. A qualified estimator
has now determined the costs at $2,870,000. Thus, an additional appropriation of $1,420,000 is requested.
1
Packet Pg. 4
October 24, 2017 Page 3
ITEM 2 - COMMUNITY PARK DEVELOPMENT
East Community Park is the next community park planned to be constructed in the city. The park will be located
east of Drake and Ziegler, and north of the new Rigden Reservoir, a project recently completed by Fort Collins
Utilities. Park Planning & Development purchased the 58 acre site a few years ago. Based on ongoing
negotiations with a developer who plans to develop adjacent to the park site, there is potential for the city to
acquire an additional 26 acres for the park. The developer has indicated he would like to donate this property to
the City at some point. The entire property, including the park site, was formerly used for gravel mining. As such,
the property is governed by a state issued mining permit, which requires the property to be restored to its original
condition after mining operations have ceased.
Immediate restoration efforts needed on the park site include:
Installation of an underdrain system to alleviate standing surface water
Restoration seeding
The primary purpose of this appropriation is to fund and complete improvements underway needed for the park
site, as required by the mining permit. The 2018 funding request is outlined as follows:
Underdrain
Extension
Extend the underdrain installed in 2017 to fully alleviate the standing
surface water on the site
$110,000
Seeding and
revegetation
A requirement of the mining permit is that the site be restored to its
original condition, prior to mining operations. Seeding & revegetation of
the site is needed to comply with this requirement.
$110,000
Total $220,000
The total appropriation request for Community Park Development is $220,000
Rationale for Mid-Year Appropriation
During the 2017-18 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process, $200,000 was appropriated for improvements to the
East Community Park site. This money was spent towards the installation of an underdrain system at the park.
However, after the drain was installed, it was determined that an extension to the underdrain is needed to fully
mitigate the surface groundwater, adequately drain the park site, and prevent the establishment of wetlands. The
additional appropriation is needed to complete this effort, and then revegetate the site as required by the mining
permit. Without this mid-year cycle appropriation, the City may be found in violation of the mining permit.
1
Packet Pg. 5
October 24, 2017 Page 4
ITEM 3 - EAST DISTRICT PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY
2018 funding is needed to provide for preliminary planning and design of a maintenance facility in the East Park
District, located on the East Community Park site, near the intersection of Drake and Ziegler. Additional funding
will be required in the future to fund construction of the facility. Maintenance for parks is provided through a
satellite system of facilities strategically located across the city, providing an efficient and cost effective delivery of
park maintenance services. There are four maintenance facilities in existence today, all of which are at capacity.
A new maintenance facility is proposed to serve the East Park District, which includes Radiant, English Ranch,
Harmony, Stew Case, Eastside, Archery Range and Twin Silo Park. In addition, Rendezvous and Vermont Trails
will be maintained from this facility. Cost savings are realized at Community Parks when the team is located in the
district that they maintain. Without a satellite system, costs to maintain the parks increase significantly.
The precinct maintenance facility approach is supported by the Council-approved 2008 Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan. The precinct model is based on research from police departments across the country and the
efficiencies gained by locating precincts in the neighborhoods they serve. These facilities provide an opportunity
for more efficient services in each district and substantial carbon reduction and fuel savings are realized through
the strategic placement of these facilities.
Previously, Council approved Ordinance No. 058, 2000, amending the City Code to increase the Capital
Improvement and Expansion Fee, as well as the Neighborhood Parkland Fee. A part of the increase was
specifically tied to the construction of maintenance facilities in support of efficient operations.
A timeframe for completion of the maintenance facility has not been determined. There are several factors that
may impact the timing of maintenance facility construction, including:
Completion and approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood risk mapping of
the Poudre River. This is estimated to be completed in 2018 or 2019.
Timing of potential land donation by adjacent developer
Other floodplain/stormwater issues that may impact the property
In order to determine the ultimate cost and location of the facility on the park site, planning and design needs to
occur now. The total cost of the maintenance facility is unknown, although preliminary estimates suggest it will be
$3-5 million. The facility will be modeled after existing maintenance facilities, including the maintenance facilities
located at Spring Canyon and Fossil Creek parks. The facility will be approximately 4,000-6,000 square feet in
size. Design costs for the project are estimates only, and are outlined in the chart below:
Item Description Estimated Cost
Floodplain Analysis Floodplain modeling & mapping required for
locating the facility in or near FEMA regulated
floodplains
$40,000-$100,000
Preliminary Site Master
Planning
Preliminary site master planning for the park
needed to determine the proper location of the
facility in accordance with other potential future
planned park amenities. This effort will be led by
Park Planning & Development staff, with some
support anticipated from consultants, such as a
surveyor
$20,000-$30,000
Facility Design Architectural, engineering and other consultant
services required for the design of the facility.
$300,000
Total $430,000
1
Packet Pg. 6
October 24, 2017 Page 5
The total appropriation request for design of the East District Parks Maintenance Facility is $430,000. Once a
location and design for the maintenance facility has been determined, an offer to fund construction of the facility
will be submitted to Council, preferably in the 2019-20 budget cycle.
Rationale for Mid-Year Appropriation
An offer funding the East District Maintenance Facility was prepared during the 2017-18 BFO process. However,
staff withdrew the East District Maintenance Facility offer based on uncertainties surrounding ongoing discussions
with the Poudre School District and other City departments regarding potential partnerships to complete the
project. As 2018 Community Parkland revenues comprised the bulk of the withdrawn offer, the 2018 community
parkland revenues were not appropriated. A mid-year budget cycle appropriation is needed to appropriate the
2018 community parkland anticipated revenues. Without this mid-year budget cycle appropriation, design of the
maintenance facility will be furthered delayed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 7
Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle Appropriations 1
10-24-17
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Discussion Items
1. Natural Areas Maintenance Facility Expansion
2. Community Park Development
3. East District Park Maintenance Facility
2
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Question for Council
Does City Council support consideration of the appropriation of funds for
these projects as outlined?
3
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
4
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
John Stokes
1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
2018 Budget Revision Proposal
• Add $1,420,000
• To Original $1,450,000 Budget
• Total Cost $2,870,000
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Benefits
• Allows Project to Start in January
• Constructs Project in one Phase
• Uses No General Fund Dollars
• Natural Areas Funds are Available and Set Aside
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
2002 - Existing Natural Areas Shop and Yard Constructed
• Less than 10 Field Staff
• Less than 10 pieces of large equipment
• Managing less than 5,000 acres
• Intended to serve 15 years
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
2017 – Shop and Yard Outgrown – Need Larger Spaces
• More than 40 Field Staff
• More than 80 pieces of large equipment
• Manage more than 36,000 acres
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Original Budget
• Created Spring of 2016
• During BFO 2017-18 Process
• Based Upon Conceptual Scope of Project
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Revised Budget
• Based Upon Final Scope
• Developed Over a Year Long Process
• Identified Field Operations Needs for the next 30 years
• Hired General Contractor Provided Cost Estimates
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Additional Option 1
• Construct Phase I in 2018
• Take Phase II Through the BFO Process for Construction in 2019
• Additional Cost - $200,000
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Additional Option 2
• Take Total Project through the 2019-2020 BFO Process
• Start Project in 2019
• Additional Cost - $240,000
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Natural Areas – Maintenance Facility Expansion
1.1
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
20
Community Park Development
Kurt Friesen
1.1
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
East Community Park Location
21
Mulberry
Prospect
Drake
Horsetooth
Harmony
Ziegler
Kechter
I-25
Timberline
Lemay
East Community
Park
1.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
East Community Park Site
22
1.1
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Park Improvements Needed
23
Mining
Permit
Boundary
• Underdrain Extension
• Seeding/Erosion Control
Park
1.1
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
2018 Community Park Development Costs
24
Community Park Development Funding Request: $210,000
Item Description Estimated
Cost
Underdrain installation Extension of an underdrain system to alleviate
surface ponding
$100,000
Seeding & revegetation Seeding & revegetation of the site to comply with
the mining permit
$110,000
1.1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
25
East District Park Maintenance Facility
Kurt Friesen & Mike Calhoon
1.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Park Districts
26
NS-Northside
SW-Southwest
SE-Southeast
SP-South Parks
NS
SW
SE
SP
EP-East Parks
SP
SW
SE
EP
NS
-Existing Shop
-Future Shop
1.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
East Park District
27
Eastside
Drake
Horsetooth
Harmony
Radiant
I-25
Lemay
Twin Silo
English Ranch
Stew Case
Archery Range
Harmony
East Park District
Maintenance
Facility
Mulberry
Prospect
1.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Spring Canyon Park Maintenance Facility
28
1.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Key Factors
• Completion and approval of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) flood risk mapping of the Poudre River. Estimated
complete in 2018-19
• Timing of potential land donation by adjacent developer
• Other floodplain/stormwater issues that may impact the property
29
1.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
2018 East Park District Maintenance Facility Costs
30
Item Description Estimated Cost
Floodplain Analysis Floodplain modeling & mapping required for locating
the facility in or near FEMA regulated floodplains
$100,000
Preliminary Site
Master Planning
Preliminary site master planning for the park needed
to determine the proper location of the facility in
accordance with other potential future planned park
amenities.
$30,000
Facility Design Architectural, engineering and other consultant
services required for the design of the facility.
$300,000
East Park District Maintenance Facility Funding Request: $430,000
1.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
Question for Council
Does City Council support consideration of the appropriation of funds for
these projects as outlined?
31
1.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6041 : Community Services 2018 Mid-Year Budget Cycle
DATE:
STAFF:
October 24, 2017
Timothy Kemp, Civil Engineer III
Chad Crager, Director of Infrastructure Services
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Realigned Lemay and Suniga-the existing Lemay Avenue/Vine Drive Intersection and the realigned Lemay
Avenue/Suniga Road Intersection.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council of the project status for realigned Lemay Avenue and Suniga Road;
and more specifically to present information regarding:
Railroad switching yard relocation
Bridge versus at-grade solutions
Project funding
Collaboration with the Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) project
Public outreach
Staff has been working on addressing Council questions over the past 14 months, in response to Council
feedback from the August 23, 2016 Work Session. The Lemay Avenue realignment and intersection
improvements have been prioritized as the City’s #1 Transportation Capital Improvement Project. The
improvements will construct a new roadway (realigned Lemay) from Lincoln Avenue to Conifer Street, and a new
intersection slightly northeast of the existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue intersection. The City has utilized an
extensive planning process over the past 25 years to plan for the proposed right-of-way and utility corridor
alignments, regional stormwater improvements, and multi-modal connectivity.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have on the staff recommendation for a bridge over the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railway and Vine Drive?
2. Does Council support a November, 2017 $2M appropriation of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF)
reserves to fund continued right-of-way acquisition and construction opportunities in 2018?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Lemay Avenue realignment and grade separation has been on the City’s Master Street Plan for nearly 30
years and is a critical infrastructure improvement needed to address existing transportation deficiencies and
neighborhood livability issues. The existing intersection operations continue to degrade which has led to
increased safety, congestion, and access problems for: local residents, BNSF and GWR railways, emergency
services, and the travelling public.
Project Goals
Neighborhood Livability - Complete critical transportation improvements that will enhance connectivity for
local neighborhoods to employment, schools, goods and services. Existing residents suffer from the
constraints of congestion on a daily basis.
Safety and Multi-Modal Connectivity - Foster a safe, connected, resilient and accessible system for all
modes of travel to key activity centers, access to high frequency transit service, and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
2
Packet Pg. 39
October 24, 2017 Page 2
Congestion Relief - Construction of the improvements will reduce congestion along existing roadways and
the BNSF rail corridor, which in turn helps improve railway switching operations and the ability to move
goods and services efficiently throughout northeast Fort Collins.
Phased Implementation -The project construction will be phased to address existing operational and
connectivity issues now, and expandable in the future as subsequent development adds capacity to the
transportation system. Realigned Lemay will be built as a 4-lane road at the southern end near Lincoln
Avenue, and as 2-lane road at the northern end near Conifer Street. The bridge may be initially
constructed 4-lanes wide to accommodate the future capacity.
Unlike most railroad crossings within Fort Collins, the existing Vine and Lemay intersection is greatly impacted
due to the proximity of the BNSF and GWR switching yard along Vine Drive. Additionally, the existing intersection
is severely congested with limited options to expand through lanes or turn capacity due to the proximity to houses
and driveways. The project will include multi-modal and landscape improvements on existing Lemay (Ninth
Street), after this section of roadway is downgraded to a local street.
Potential for Relocation of the Switching Yard
City staff met with BNSF staff 5 times between December 2016 and May 2017 to discuss logistics, cost, and
master plan options. The existing switching yard consists of one mainline track and 5 siding tracks between
Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road. The project team worked with BNSF staff to estimate the cost of a concept
plan for a switching yard in a new location that is similar to what BNSF and GWR currently have for switching
infrastructure:
An independent cost estimate of approximately $40M was generated as a result of our concept plans, the
estimate was reviewed and consented to by BNSF staff
The switching yard relocation is a “net-neutral” for BNSF, meaning it is of no economic benefit to BNSF to
move the switching yard
The entire cost of relocation would be the responsibility of the City
Staff is not recommending this as a near-term solution
Realigned Lemay Avenue as a Bridge or At-Grade solution at the BNSF crossing
Staff is recommending the Bridge alternative based upon:
Multiple discussions and on-site meetings with BNSF and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) staff
Project Cost - the total project budget for both options is $22M in 2017 dollars
o Further investigation and coordination with BNSF and PUC staff has led to a slightly lower cost
for the bridge alternative and a substantially higher cost for the at-grade alternative since the last
Council Work Session
Mobility and connectivity for local neighborhoods because the existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue
intersection can remain open, at-grade, to all travel modes
Significant emissions reductions, improved travel time reliability, and improved emergency services
response time
Project Funding
Table A is a summary of current project funding and identifies a need of $10M in 2017 dollars. Table B is a
summary of an assumed inflation of 3.5% per year between the 2017 estimated project cost and 2021 estimated
project cost.
2
Packet Pg. 40
October 24, 2017 Page 3
TABLE A - Project Funding
Total Project Cost $22M*
BFO Offers (already appropriated) $2M
TCEF Contribution $10M**
Additional Funding Needed $10M
* 2017 Dollars
** $10M includes $2M of future Developer repays / contributions from adjacent properties
TABLE B - Assumed Project Inflation Year over Year
Construction
Year
Inflation of 3.5% per
Year***
Project Cost
2017 $22,000,000
2018 $770,000 $22,770,000
2019 $796,950 $23,566,950
2020 $824,843 $24,391,793
2021 $853,713 $25,245,506
*** Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 2.5% for 12 months, ending January, 2017
Staff is currently exploring several funding options for the $10M current funding gap. The options will be
reviewed, along with overall project plans, at the November 20 Council Finance Committee meeting:
“Pay as we go” option, set aside $2M - $4M of one-time money each year as available over several years
and phase the construction until the $10M target is achieved
“Debt financing” option, issue Certificates of Participation (COP’s) utilizing a City asset, similar to the way
the recent downtown parking garage was funded. This option would require approximately $770k of new
debt cost for 20 years.
“Combination” option, some combination of the above two options
Staff foresees substantial challenges with implementing and maintaining a tolling system for realigned
Lemay Avenue. The evaluation conducted with our tolling consultant shows that tolling is not feasible for
the following reasons:
o Lemay is a small project compared to other projects researched across the country. The fixed
cost of tolling raises the overall project cost substantially.
o Toll collection costs rise significantly if license plate photo and bill collection is a large percentage
of tolls.
o Anticipated that a toll on Lemay will encourage traffic diversions to Timberline and North College
with the effect of increasing trip length and diminishing congestion relief benefits
o A fairness and equity issue where residents / businesses on Lemay would be charged when all
other similar arterials in Fort Collins are not tolled
Opportunity for Partnering and Cost Saving
Staff recommends moving forward with an early construction phase in the spring 2018 through a partnership with
the Utilities Department:
The NECCO Stormwater Master Plan project is an $8M Utilities infrastructure investment in the Suniga
Road and realigned Lemay area. The project began construction in 2017 and the final phase will be
constructed in 2018. Project goals include:
o Regional detention, floodplain mitigation, and water quality improvements
o NECCO follows the Suniga Road right-of-way from Redwood Street to realigned Lemay Avenue
The early construction phase along realigned Lemay will include:
o Installation of underground concrete box culverts, combined with the Utilities final phase of the
NECCO Stormwater Master Plan implementation
2
Packet Pg. 41
October 24, 2017 Page 4
o Placement of 50,000 cubic yards (CY) (of the total 170,000 CY needed) of fill material in the
realigned Lemay right-of-way (ROW), for the future construction of a bridge over Vine and the
railroad, using material generated from the NECCO pond and outfall channel. See exhibit below.
o Early construction cost savings of $700,000 comes from the difference between the Vine/Lemay
Engineer’s Estimate and the negotiated pricing from the Utilities contract for the NECCO project
for the following items:
Dirt Placement - $11/CY savings = $550,000
The dirt placed will be approximately 100 feet away from a roadway and will be seeded
for both erosion control and aesthetic purposes
Box Culverts - project savings = $150,000 (due to the contractor already being on-site
and having additional lead time to fabricate the boxes)
o The placement of the concrete box culverts will allow us to include this work under the Utilities
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for the re-mapping of the floodplain, which is a time and resource
saving measure
o This work is required for the project regardless of timing and doing this work in 2018 will save the
project future costs and shorten the future schedule
Outreach and Public Engagement
Over the past 20 months staff has given a number of formal presentations and provided project information at City
sponsored events; designed to encourage public participation and collect feedback. Staff is actively addressing
community questions and working with nearby residents, business owners, landowners, and proposed
development projects.
Summary of Public Engagement to Date
February 2016 - Public Open House at Streets Facility - 122 people signed in for the event
February 2016 - Presentation to the Transportation Board
May 2016 - Presentation to the Futures Committee
May 2016 - Presentation to the Council Finance Committee
August 2016 - Lincoln Neighborhood Ice Cream Social
August 2016 - Council Work Session
November 2016 - Presentation to Alta Vista residents
September 2017 - Open House event for Alta Vista, Andersonville, and Buckingham residents
Project website is available at: <http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/vine-lemay.php>
<https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/vine-lemay.php>
Next Steps
Staff has the following items planned for the remainder of 2017 and early 2018:
Continued public outreach and engagement with stakeholders
o Broaden the discussion to include the North Fort Collins Business Association, City boards and
commissions, etc.
Move from a 30% project design to a 60% project design
o To include a detailed noise and lighting analysis with mitigation recommendations
Finalize the needed right-of-way for realigned Lemay Avenue, south of Vine Drive; and the Buckingham
Street extension from Ninth Street to realigned Lemay Avenue
$2M TCEF appropriation in November 2017 for opportunities to:
o Allocate $1.4M toward:
Right-of-way purchases for realigned Lemay Avenue, south of Vine Drive; and the
Buckingham Street extension from Ninth Street to realigned Lemay (expected cost of
$350k)
Dirt placement partnering with Utilities ($500k)
Box Culvert partnering with Utilities ($550k)
2
Packet Pg. 42
October 24, 2017 Page 5
o Staff also recommends an additional $600k in appropriations in the event of similar coordination
opportunities for Vine / Lemay cost savings in the future
The $2M TCEF appropriation above will lower the remaining TCEF available funds to $8M
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map (PDF)
2. Open House Summary (PDF)
3. Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 43
ROYVAL AS OWNER)
(ASSESSOR SHOWS
REC. NO. 89036400
BUSINESS CENTER LTD.
FORT COLLINS
FILINGS
FIRST AND SECOND
SAN CRISTO P.U.D
REC. NO. 88025752
PER QUIT CLAIM DEED,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
20100044097
SALE DEED, REC. NO.
PER BARGAIN AND
TONIA NIFOROS
NO. 87044407
WARRANTY DEED, REC.
BROKERAGE, INC. PER
KEIL INVESTMENT
NO. 20140019593
WARRANTY DEED, REC.
PER SPECIAL
STERLING CRANE LLC
20120080055
DEED, REC. NO.
SPECIAL WARRANTY
L. GRAHAM PER
JOHN C. AND GINGER
COTTAGES SUBDIVISION
PROPOSED CAPSTONE
20000015805
DEED, REC. NO.
SPECIAL WARRANTY
LEE ROYVAL PER
NORMAN L. AND DIANA
REC. NO. 97065351
PER WARRANTY DEED,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
10123
4948.58
MH
200+00
205+00
210+00
215+00
220+00
225+00
226+00
PI 200+00.00
PI 226+00.00
100+00
1
05
+
00
11
0
+
00
111
1
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Project
Public Meeting Summary
DRAFT
Legacy Church, September 600 9th 5-Street, 7 PM 28, Fort 2017 Collins, Co 80524
vicinity, The at Meeting The the meeting City Legacy Next of Overview: Ft. was Church. Door Collins announced announcements, hosted Twenty-a through four public members flyers meeting
a postcard distributed of on the mailer September public to to residents signed residents 28, 2017 in and to in from the the at the meeting. project 5-Legacy 7 PM,
The Church, • • • • • boards Project Screening Alternatives: Phase Community and covered through 1 Overview Project Process Feedback the Realigned Vida Renderings following Sana on At-organization
9th Grade topics: of Street 2-Lane and (Buckingham representatives. Bridge Bridge Options to new Suniga) – This board
requested feedback (through sticky notes attached to the board) from the
The • • meeting Ways community Anticipated to boards Provide Cost, are Comments attached Funding, to Schedule this meeting summary.
The one-Public to the meeting on-attendees. Comments one discussions was held Received: as with an open City house staff. Written style for comment the public sheets to provide were
also input available through
Thoughts and Concerns about the design for a realignment of Lemay Avenue
with a bridge over the railroad tracks and Vine Drive
• • • • • • Standing bike/planned behind that Clogged I Happy Move Make would needs ped the it existing my (love ditch north the water bridge option to neighborhood realignment) it get
(if and along Vine/is there 4 for there an lanes east turning issue homes Lemay was now. of from (Vine/further along San an that left intersection the overpass Cristo) Lemay onto back
Lemay start. east existing to that will The deviated the is would remaining. increase traffic future Vine (capture maybe volume, realignment) from flow Would existing the dramatically.
most with wrong like of all Lemay the a that word) better traffic is
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Project Public Meeting: September 28, 2017
2
Existing • • • I purpose Depends Will or don’t 9th a “ghetto” it Street make understand of on closing how our (under existing neighborhood high part why a bridge? the Lemay of Vine bridge
the will (existing Avenue) worst (Via will no Lopez) longer fear!be. road? will ) be look have It a makes through like much we no live sense. street. lower in the traffic What “projects”
is the
volumes once the bridge is built. What improvements would you like to see
made to 9th Street?
• • • • • • Need Better better None horn’s Sidewalks. thoroughfare to Put Sidewalks, put run the into noise – way around. bike/bell no sidewalk Lincoln sidewalks Plant lighting, to and
pedestrian -turn it visual Corridor) is some on a left cross west slow – barriers from trees. no lanes. side walks, neighborhood bike 9th Make Repave of lanes at to plants, Lemay, the
existing this on San the a 9th. flowers, south that street Christo existing Vine. Kill wants of that old trees Buckingham neighborhood. bike/Lemay. dog is (no same ped walkers longer
Silence path efforts back considered and and the in. that children have train were a a
Other Comments
• • • • • Exit Traffic Landscaped Parking Very We Suniga need to concerned get calming (see on a out raised/Lemay? past berm, of measures about City neighborhood-landscaped not On Plans)traffic
swale, streets needed . Also calming between berm facility -need – on Preferred to future on side status- Alta mitigate the Vista Suniga proposed – City move noise and to look Suniga
Suniga and Suniga into pollution farther by this. Alta from north. Vista.
• • • • • • • • Maybe Vine I When permanent Why When(“When since Distance How Is hate the to is will I’ve noise the will sic) add the will get from drainage lived idea the is nature
to some this barrier better the Timberline short the of here. begin? street a roundabouts trail fence or soccer be was extension J worse? contained? “Anxious not at Thank put line? and
the field shown in (south then Response: to you” of dominating to and prevent 10th discourage on Mulberry. end patiently Street Street of Fort access. 10th the Park connect trucks Collins
waiting Park Street? Conceptual? that Area is to for looking Duff? already SW the of It past for looks Vine/use berms, 18 existing like Lemay. years trees a
for noise buffers)
• No dedicated dog park?
2.2
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Thank you for coming!
¡Gracias por venir!
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Neighborhood Meeting
Vine / Lemay / Reunión Vecinal de BNSF
September 28th, 2017
28 de septiembre de 2017
2.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Goals
• Relieve congestion
• Improve safety and
access
• Enhance neighborhood
livability
• Plan for smart growth
Project Overview
Focus
Area
Existing Problems
• Safety
• Capacity
• Mobility & Local
Connectivity
• Degraded Facilities
2.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Metas
• Aliviar la congestión
• Mejorar la seguridad y
el acceso
• Mejorar la
habitabilidad del
vecindario
• Planear para un
crecimiento inteligente
Descripción del proyecto
Focus
Area
Problemas Actuales
• La seguridad
• Capacidad
• Movilidad y
Conectividad Local
• Instalaciones
degradadas
2.2
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
At-Grade Bridge
Capacity and Connectivity Poor
Realigned Lemay would experience train delays.
Requires closure of existing Lemay.
Good
Extends over train (avoids train delay)
Existing Lemay stays open as a multimodal at-grade
crossing.
Constructability and
Construction Risks
Poor
Difficult to keep BNSF operational during construction
Good
Permitting and Approval
Risks
Poor
Requires closure of existing Vine/Lemay in order to
construct a new crossing
Good
Total Project Cost $$ $$
Noise Fair Fair
Elevated roadway
Water Resources,
Flooding, Drainage
Good Good
Summary Severe Challenges Preferred Option
Screening Process
2.2
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
A Nivel Puente
Capacidad y Conectividad Pobre
Realineamiento de Lemay causaría retrasos de tren.
Requiere cierre de Lemay actual.
Bueno
Sería por encima del tren (evitaría los retrasos del tren)
El Lemay actual permanecería abierto como un paso a
nivel multimodal.
Riesgos de construcción y
de la viabilidad de la
construcción
Pobre
Difícil mantener operativo al BNSF durante la
construcción
Bueno
Riesgos de los Permisos y
de las Autorizaciones
Pobre
Requiere el cierre del Vine / Lemay actual para
construir un nuevo cruce
Bueno
Costo Total del Proyecto $$ $$
Ruido Justo Justo
Carretera elevada
Recursos del Agua,
Inundaciones, Drenaje
Bueno Bueno
Resumen Desafíos severos Opción Preferente
Proceso de selección
2.2
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Realigned At-Grade Option Bridge Option
2.2
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Phase 1 Project Renderings of 2-Lane Bridge/Proyecto fase 1 Renders del puente de 2 carriles
Interim condition until funding is secured for 4-Lane Bridge
Condición de interino hasta que el financiamiento está asegurado para puente de 4 carriles
These renderings show potential long-term development over the next 20-30 years. This development is only a concept based on approved zoning.
Estas versiones muestran potencial de desarrollo a largo plazo en los próximos 20-30 años. Este desarrollo es sólo un concepto basado en la zonificación aprobada.
2.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
PhaseBridge 1 Project Phase Renderings 1 Project: of 2-Lane Bridge/Renderings Proyecto fase of 2-1 Lane Renders del puente de 2 carriles
These renderings show potential long-term development over the next 20-30 years. This development is only a concept based on approved zoning.
Estas versiones muestran potencial de desarrollo a largo plazo en los próximos 20-30 años. Este desarrollo es sólo un concepto basado en la zonificación aprobada
2.2
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
9th
Street (South of Vine)
Detached Sidewalk
Remains
Se queda la acera
separada
Drainage Issues?
¿Problemas de drenaje?
Add Bike Lane?
¿Añadir el carril bici?
Curb or No Curb?
¿Borde de la banqueta?
Keep parking?
¿Mantener el
estacionamiento?
We need your input on the future 9th
Street between Buckingham and the new Suniga. Please use a sticky note to write down your suggestions.
Necesitamos su opinión sobre el futuro de la Calle 9 entre Buckingham y la nueva Suniga. Utilice una nota adhesiva para anotar sus sugerencias.
Improvements to
sidewalks?
¿Mejoras en las aceras?
9th
Street (North of Vine)
2.2
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
•Current City Funding Available for the Project: $10 Million
$2 Million - Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) Offers
$8 Million – Collected from development fees
•Additional Funding Required: $12 Million
$2M –Future development repays to the City
Funding
Schedule
Preliminary Design
• Alternatives Selection
• Confirm utility impacts
• Define property to be purchased
Construction
• Prepare the site
• Relocate utilities
• Construction bridge
Previous Plans
• City Planning efforts
• East Vine/Lemay
Intersection Realignment
Development Report
Final Design
• Produce design drawings for
construction
• Buy the needed land
1997-2014 2017 2018/2019+
We Are Here
2017/2018
Anticipated Cost
Bridge and roadway improvements: $20-$22 Million
2.2
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
• Financiamiento Disponible para el Proyecto: $ 10 Millones
$ 2 millones – Ofertas del Presupuesto por Resultados (BFO)
$ 8 millones - Recaudado de las tasas de desarrollo
• Financiamiento adicional requerido: $ 10 millones - $ 12 millones
$ 2 millones - El desarrollo futuro que se reembolsará a la ciudad
Financiación
Programación
Diseño preliminar
• Selección de Alternativas
• Confirmar los impactos a los
servicios públicos
• Definir las propiedades que
habrá que adquirirse
Construcción
• Preparar el lugar
• Trasladar los servicios públicos
• Construir el puente
Planes anteriores
• Esfuerzos del departamento
de Planificación de la Ciudad
• Informe de Desarrollo de la
Realineación de la Intersección
Vine Este / Lemay
Diseño final
• Producir los bocetos del diseño
para la construcción
• Adquirir los terrenos necesarios
1997-2014 2017 2018/2019+
Estamos aquí
2017/2018
Costo Anticipado
Puente y mejoras de la carretera: $ 20 - $ 22 millones
2.2
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Provide Comments/Proporcionar comentarios:
• Complete a Comment Card (tonight)/Completar una tarjeta de comentarios
(esta noche)
• Contact the project team/Contactar al equipo del proyecto
For more information/Para más información:
Sign up for the project mailing list/Inscríbase en la lista de correo del proyecto:
http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/vine-lemay.php
Contact Tim Kemp, City of Fort Collins Project Manager
Phone: 970-416-2719 tkemp@fcgov.com
Contactar Tim Kemp, Ciudad de Fort Collins Gerente de Proyecto
Teléfono: 970-416-2719 tkemp@fcgov.com
2.2
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Open House Summary (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Memorandum
Date: November 10, 2016 and October 11, 2017
To: City of Fort Collins, CO
From: AECOM project team
Subject: Lemay Avenue at E. Vine Drive
Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study
Executive Summary
This technical memorandum summarizes AECOM’s high-level, conceptual study to evaluate the
financial feasibility of developing a toll bridge for the proposed grade separation of Lemay Avenue and
E. Vine Drive. The following statements conclude the results of this study:
• The financial analysis used a rational model based on the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis of
the discounted cash flows for a 30-year analysis period and for the base case indicated a total
deficit of nearly $12 million for the proposed project if implemented as a toll road using revenue
finance. This project would therefore not be attractive to investors, unless seed capital was
provided by the City.
• Given this project would be the first toll project in Fort Collins area, it will likely be difficult to gain
pubic support and acceptance for a toll bridge, which is similar to many other bridges provided
from tax revenue.
• An investment grade study is required to obtain a bond rating from rating agencies, in order to
go to the market for revenue-based funding – this takes time and adds to the schedule to
complete the improvement of this project. The additional funding requirements required by the
bond market, including debt service coverage and reserve accounts have not been included in
this analysis.
• Environmental justice analysis of the effect of tolling on communities would need to be
considered as part of an environmental evaluation and may have a negative impact.
• Toll rate sensitivity analysis indicates the project becomes more financially viable at toll rates
significantly higher than the $0.35 base rate, which is beyond the range currently charged in
Colorado ($0.30 per mile for E-470).
• The short length of the project, which determines an appropriate toll rate, results in a
proportionally high cost of toll collection, both in capital costs and operating costs. A high
adoption rate of transponders would be critical for the cost effective collection of tolls, which has
been assumed for this analysis.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 1 –
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Introduction
AECOM was retained by the City of Fort Collins to conduct a high-level, conceptual toll feasibility study for
the proposed grade separation of Lemay Avenue and E. Vine Drive.
The existing intersection of Lemay Avenue and E. Vine Drive is located in the northeast of Fort Collins. It
is currently an at-grade, signalized intersection. Both Lemay Avenue and E. Vine Drive are two-lane,
undivided roadway with Lemay Avenue running north-south and E. Vine Drive running east-west. The
BNSF Railroad track, parallel to the E. Vine Drive, is located less than 50 feet to the south of the
intersection and is controlled by a crossing gate on Lemay Avenue. See the following Figure 1 for the
location.
The Grade Separation Project (The Project) proposed to relocate Lemay Avenue east of the existing
intersection and cross over both E. Vine Drive and BNSF Railroad track with a grade-separated
interchange. The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of tolling this grade separation at a
conceptual level. This technical memorandum provides a brief description of the Project, a summary of
the traffic and revenue projections, estimated project costs, financial analysis and concludes with
conceptual toll viability.
Project Description
The existing intersection of Lemay Avenue and E. Vine Drive is severely congested with limited capacity
and more than 22,000 daily entering traffic volumes and 2,100 peak hour entering volumes. It also has
potential safety concerns with close-by railroad crossings. Lemay Avenue is currently a 2-lane undivided
road but is shown as a future 4-lane divided arterial on the City’s Master Street Plan. E. Vine Drive is also
a 2-lane undivided road but shown as a 2-lane collector road for the future.
The Project, as in the City’s Master Street Plan, proposed to reroute Lemay Avenue between Conifer
Street and Buckingham Street and move its intersection with E. Vine Drive approximately 1,000 feet east
of existing location. Several alternatives of footprint are under study but the realigned intersection of
Lemay Avenue and E. Vine Drive will be grade separated with realigned Lemay Avenue crossing over
both E. Vine Drive and BNSF Railroad Crossing, as shown on Figure 2.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 2 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
This analysis studies the financial feasibility of tolling this grade-separated segment of realigned Lemay
Avenue with the following assumptions:
• All electronic tolling
• One toll gantry on the bridge
• No toll barriers with unimpeded traffic flow
• Customers will have either transponder or video billing
• Customers will be fined for non-payment violation
• Use regional/national private tolling service
The Project is expected to provide the following benefits:
• Closure of at-grade rail crossing for enhanced operations and safety
• Reduction in number and severity of accidents at intersection and rail crossing
• Reduced journey times
• Improved journey time reliability
• Improved distribution of traffic from/to Downtown Fort Collins
• Reduction in air/noise pollution
In the following sections, traffic and revenue forecast will be discussed with the tolling concept, followed
by a project cost estimation and financial analysis. Toll viability is determined and discussed at
conceptual level at the end.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 3 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Traffic & Revenue Analysis
Traffic & revenue forecast includes a projection of future traffic volumes under the proposed project
configuration and an estimation of annual revenues with the assumed tolling policy. While a detailed
traffic & revenue analysis requires comprehensive data collection and sophisticated traffic modeling, this
study aims at providing a “back-of-envelope” analysis solely based on publicly available data.
1. Traffic Data
1.1. Existing Traffic
Existing traffic counts were collected from the City of Fort Collins website including annual daily counts
and peak hour turning movement counts at the intersection, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1 Daily Traffic Counts (Collected in May, 2015)
Location NB SB EB WB
9th St./N. Lemay Ave. (S. of E. Vine Dr.) 6,714 9,640
N. Lemay Ave. (N. of E. Vine Dr.) 8,079 8,275
E. Vine Dr. (E. of N. Lemay Ave.) 3,772 3,579
E. Vine Dr. (W. of N. Lemay Ave.) 3,543 2,888
Table 2 Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts
Lemay - SB Vine - WB Lemay - NB Vine - EB
Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left
7:30 AM - 8: 30 AM
Total Volume 41 594 46 89 184 63 39 311 39 68 111 9
% App. Total 6% 87% 7% 26% 55% 19% 10% 80% 10% 36% 59% 5%
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM
Total Volume 26 465 49 63 115 57 47 509 54 69 112 30
% App. Total 5% 86% 9% 27% 49% 24% 8% 83% 9% 33% 53% 14%
4:30 - 5:30 PM
Total Volume 26 520 72 142 159 40 74 751 53 73 202 40
% App. Total 4% 84% 12% 42% 47% 12% 8% 86% 6% 23% 64% 13%
Based on the traffic counts, traffic volumes on Lemay Avenue are over 16,000 vehicles per day, with over
12,000 vehicle per day are through traffic crossing both E. Vine Drive and BNSF Railroad track.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 4 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
1.2. Traffic Growth Rate
As no historical daily traffic count data are available, the daily traffic growth rate is derived from population
and employment growth in the region.
According to City of Fort Collins (as of April, 2015), the city population is shown in Table 3. From year
2012 to year 2016, the city’s population grew at 1.8% annual compound rate. In addition, Forbes web site
indicates that the city’s job growth is 2.8% for the year of 2014. Denver Post has reported that the Fort
Collins metro area will see metro GDP growth of 4% and job growth of 2.4% in 2016, according to annual
forecast from the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Table 3 Fort Collins Population Estimates
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Preliminary City Population Estimate
158,300 161,000
State Population Estimate 150,110 152,205 154,570
Combining population and employment growth information, we assume that, during the 50 years project
cycle, the traffic will grow at 2% annual compound rate for the first 15 years, 1% for the second 15 years,
and 0.5% for the remainder 20 years.
2. Project Assumption
2.1. Study Year
It is assumed the Project will complete construction and be open to traffic in Year 2020. A total of 50
years is assumed to be the tolling period for the purpose of analysis.
2.2. Toll Rate
Toll rate for the Lemay grade separation is assumed to be 35 cents for opening year 2020 and escalate
with inflation. This rate is consistent with US experience for short toll roads crossing minor obstructions
According to U.S. Department of Transportation’s The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental
Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations, Revision 2 (2015 Update), the value-of-time (VOT) for
work related travel over all distance is assumed to be equal to the median hourly wage and an estimate of
hourly benefits. For personal travel, the VOT is assumed to be 50% of hourly median household income.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for Fort Collins-Loveland Metropolitan
Statistical Area is $22.23 in May, 2014, about 37 cents per minute. The median household income in the
City of Fort Collins is $53,780 based on American Community Survey five- year average from year 2009
to 2013, which gives a VOT of 21 cents per minute for personal travel in the region.
Based on U.S. DOT’s VOT guideline, the 35 cents toll rate for the Project is equivalent to about 1-minute
time savings for work related travel and about 1.5-minute time savings for leisure travel. It was assumed
that the tolls were exempt from sales tax, and that efficient enforcement limited revenue leakage to low
levels.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 5 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
2.3. Toll Diversion
Within 1-mile range of existing intersection, there is no arterial road that can function as an alternate route
for travelers using Lemay Avenue to cross over E. Vine Drive and BNSF Railroad track. As the Grade
Separation Project improves the reliability for the through traffic on Lemay Avenue as well as offers time
savings avoiding the signal controlled intersection and railroad blockage delays, it is possible that we see
the overpass attract more through traffic. For the simplicity of this analysis, we assumed through traffic
volumes will remain as is with no toll diversion. Also no reduction is applied for ramp up periods since
existing route has few viable alternatives.
A simplified toll sensitivity analysis is presented in Appendix A. The sensitivity analysis indicates that at
higher tolls there is significant toll diversion, as alternate routes to the east become attractive despite
longer journey times.
3. Traffic and Revenue Forecast
Using these traffic data and project assumptions, future traffic forecast and revenues were calculated and
tabulated as shown in Table 4. The annual revenue is based on an annualization factor of 250 days.
Figure 3 shows the annual toll revenue by year. In total, the project is expected to generate $87 million in
toll revenue over a 50-year period.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 6 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Table 4 Annual Traffic & Revenue Forecast
YEAR Daily Transaction Annual Revenue ($) Growth ACCUMULATIVE REVENUE
2020 14,082 $ 1,232,175 $ 1,232,175
2021 14,363 $ 1,256,763 2% $ 2,488,938
2022 14,650 $ 1,281,875 2% $ 3,770,813
2023 14,943 $ 1,307,513 2% $ 5,078,326
2024 15,241 $ 1,333,588 2% $ 6,411,914
2025 15,545 $ 1,360,188 2% $ 7,772,102
2026 15,855 $ 1,387,313 2% $ 9,159,415
2027 16,172 $ 1,415,050 2% $ 10,574,465
2028 16,495 $ 1,443,313 2% $ 12,017,778
2029 16,824 $ 1,472,100 2% $ 13,489,878
2030 17,160 $ 1,501,500 2% $ 14,991,378
2031 17,503 $ 1,531,513 2% $ 16,522,891
2032 17,853 $ 1,562,138 2% $ 18,085,029
2033 18,210 $ 1,593,375 2% $ 19,678,404
2034 18,574 $ 1,625,225 2% $ 21,303,629
2035 18,759 $ 1,641,413 1% $ 22,945,042
2036 18,946 $ 1,657,775 1% $ 24,602,817
2037 19,135 $ 1,674,313 1% $ 26,277,130
2038 19,326 $ 1,691,025 1% $ 27,968,155
2039 19,519 $ 1,707,913 1% $ 29,676,068
2040 19,714 $ 1,724,975 1% $ 31,401,043
2041 19,911 $ 1,742,213 1% $ 33,143,256
2042 20,110 $ 1,759,625 1% $ 34,902,881
2043 20,311 $ 1,777,213 1% $ 36,680,094
2044 20,514 $ 1,794,975 1% $ 38,475,069
2045 20,719 $ 1,812,913 1% $ 40,287,982
2046 20,926 $ 1,831,025 1% $ 42,119,007
2047 21,135 $ 1,849,313 1% $ 43,968,320
2048 21,346 $ 1,867,775 1% $ 45,836,095
2049 21,559 $ 1,886,413 1% $ 47,722,508
2050 21,666 $ 1,895,775 0.5% $ 49,618,283
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 7 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Project Cost
Cost estimate for the lifecycle of the Project includes both construction cost and operations and
maintenance (O&M) cost. Upfront construction cost includes:
• Grade separation total construction cost - $25 million
• Tolling system cost - $3 million
In this estimate, routine & capital maintenance cost is not considered for the grade separation of the
structure, but is included for tolling system. Toll system maintenance cost is assumed $200,000 a year
and escalate at CPI rate. Based on industry practice, the feasibility study also assumes a lifecycle
replacement of electronic system every 7 years that is equal to $1 million.
This feasibility study considers toll operation costs in both electronic transponders and video billing.
Electronic transponders has low transaction cost. Video billing incurs higher cost and typically charges a
premium to cover cost such as admin fees and losses. It is assumed transponder will incur 8 cents per
transaction plus a 2.5% merchant fee based on industry standard practice. Video billing cost is
considered equal to the video billing premium – a typical industry aim, which is not always achieved.
Financial Analysis
The value of the project was assessed using the Net Present Value (NPV) of the discounted cash flows
for a 30-year analysis period with a Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discounted rate. A
WACC of 4.5% is assumed to be consistent with municipal funding backed by toll revenue stream. There
is no consideration of financing requirements such as Debt Service Coverage. Construction cost is
assumed to escalate at 3.0%, higher than the 2.0% Retail Price Index which is Federal Reserve goal.
The NPVs calculated at 2016 $ are presented in Table 5. The valuation of the project does not make the
grade separation of Lemay Avenue and E. Vine Drive financially viable as an independent project.
Table 5 Net Present Value of the Project with 30-year Toll Revenue
Note: total does not sum correctly due to rounding
The NPV analysis demonstrates that the project does not meet typical market criteria for
funding secured on a future toll revenue stream, even when roadway and bridge
maintenance costs are not considered in the analysis. Substantial public sector funding
would be required to close the funding gap.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 8 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Toll Viability
In addition to financial feasibility, the following factors also need to be considered for the viability of a
tolling project:
• Political Acceptance
• Environmental Justice
• Local Buy-In
• Technical Viability. The proposed realignment of Lemay Ave with tolls is technically feasible
using proven technologies.
These factors will be considered briefly as part of a high level risk review.
Tolling Project Risks
1. Political acceptability: The project will require strong advocates and legal authority to overcome the
dual obstacles of this Project being the first toll project in Fort Collins and a possible perception of
double taxation: tax plus tolls. Political acceptance will likely be more difficult to achieve because the
project is not financially viable as an independent project.
2. Achieving Local Buy-In: The absence of a good alternative route, when an alternative existed
previously, may make achieving local buy-in problematic. The communities immediately adjacent to
the proposed toll road will likely need to use the toll road on multiple occasions each day. The
improved safety provided by the elimination of the at-grade rail crossing will be assessed against the
effect on net household income. Local buy-in would likely be improved if the project were part of a
safety program in which all improvements were tolled.
3. Schedule: Introducing tolling to the proposed realignment of Lemay Ave could impact the schedule
for completion of the project.
o Environmental justice: The specific effects of tolling on communities would be considered as
part of an environmental re-evaluation.
o Funding: The use of toll revenue financing could accelerate the implementation of the project.
4. Net Revenue: This conceptual analysis has used a rational economic model to assess the potential
diversion of traffic due to tolling. Public perception may increase or decrease that diversion of traffic.
Net revenue would be substantially affected by the usage of transponders. As the first toll road in Fort
Collins, initial market penetration of transponders might be slow, increasing toll operations costs for a
facility that offers no economies of scale. Partnership with an existing toll entity could help to mitigate
these risks and costs.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 9 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
9400 Amberglen Boulevard, Austin, TX 78729
T 512-454-4797 F 512-454-6499
Disclaimer
This technical memorandum is for a high level feasibility study only. The traffic and revenue forecasts are
subject to change. It is AECOM’ opinion that the toll revenue projections are reasonable at this level and
that they have been prepared in accordance with accepted practice. However, given the uncertainties
within the current international and economic climate, it is important to note the following limitations:
This report presents the results of AECOM’ consideration of the information available as of the date
hereof and the application of AECOM’ experience and professional judgment to that information. It is not
a guarantee of any future events or trends.
The traffic and toll revenue forecasts will be subject to future economic and social conditions,
demographic developments and regional transportation construction activities that cannot be predicted
with certainty.
The projections contained in this report, while presented with numeric specificity, are based on a number
of estimates and assumptions which, though considered reasonable to us, are inherently subject to
significant economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond the
control of the client and cannot be predicted with certainty. In many instances, a broad range of
alternative assumptions could be considered reasonable. Changes in the assumptions used could result
in material differences in projected outcomes.
AECOM’ toll revenue projections only represent its best judgment and AECOM does not warrant or
represent that the actual toll revenues will not vary from its projections, estimates, and forecasts.
If, for any reason, any of these conditions should change due to changes in the economy or competitive
environment, or other factors, AECOM’ opinions or estimates may be affected.
This technical memorandum is for the limited purpose of providing information to the City of Fort Collins,
and is not intended and is not to be used or read to provide any municipal advisory advice or otherwise
used in connection with the offering of any securities that may be issued in connection with the
Lemay/Vine Grade Separation Project and no person or entity other than the City of Fort Collins, is
authorized or permitted to rely on this report without the express written consent of AECOM.
A Trusted Global Environmental, Health and Safety Partner
- 10 –
2.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Conceptual Toll Feasibility Study memo (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
1
Vine and Lemay – Council Work Session
Engineering Department
October 24, 2017
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Questions
2
• Does Council support the staff recommendation for a
bridge over BNSF and Vine Drive?
• Does Council support a November, 2017 $2M
appropriation of TCEF reserves to fund continued ROW
acquisition and construction opportunities in 2018?
2.4
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Presentation Overview
3
• Switching Yard Relocation
• Bridge v. At-Grade
Alternatives
• Project Funding
• NECCO Collaboration
• Public Outreach
• Next Steps
2.4
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Switching Yard Relocation
4
• $40M Estimate for
Concept Relocation Plan
• “Net Neutral” for BNSF –
No Economic Benefit
• Not Recommended as a
Near-Term Solution
2.4
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Realigned Lemay At-Grade Option
5
• Vine Drive must Close at
Realigned Lemay
• Existing Vine / Lemay
Intersection must Close
• Realigned Lemay At-Grade
moves 1,000’ closer to
Switching Yard Operations
2.4
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Realigned Lemay Bridge Option
6
• Vine Drive stays Open at
Realigned Lemay (short
term), Potential Bike / Ped
only option in the future
• Existing Vine / Lemay
Intersection remains Open
• Realigned Lemay will not
be impacted by Switching
Yard Operations
2.4
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Bridge v. At-Grade (Realigned Lemay)
7
Comparison Intersection of Options
Neighborhood Capacity Connectivity Type and At-Poor Grade Bridge Good
Livability Emergency Access and Fair Good
Permitting Approvals and Poor Good
Total Cost (Project 2017) $22M $22M
Summary Challenges Significant Least
Challenges
2.4
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Proposed Bridge Rendering
8
2.4
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Proposed Bridge Rendering
9
2.4
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Project Funding Options
10
1. “Pay as we Go” Option – Set aside
one-time money each year
2. Debt Financing Option – Similar to
recent Downtown Parking Garage
scenario
3. Proposed Tolling System Option
• Funding options will be reviewed at
November 20 Council Finance
Committee meeting
Total BFO Transportation Offers Project (already Cost Capital appropriated) Expansion Fee $$ 22M* 2M
(TCEF) Additional Contribution Funding Needed $$10M*10M *
TABLE A – Project Funding
* Denotes 2017 Dollars
** $10M (TCEF) includes $2M of future
Developer repays / contributions from
adjacent properties
2.4
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Proposed Tolling System Option
11
• Staff has Contracted with a Consulting Firm with Nationwide
Tolling Expertise
• Initial Capital and Ongoing Expenses too high for this Project
• “Toll Avoidance” Issues
• Creates a Fairness and Equity Issue for Residents /
Businesses
2.4
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Utilities Partnering Collaboration
12
• Utilities Stormwater Master
Plan under Construction
along Suniga Road
alignment
• Early Construction Phase
and Cost Savings ($700k)
Proposed Box Culvert and Fill Area
Vine Drive
N
2.4
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
$2M TCEF Appropriation
13
Transportation Contribution Proposed TCEF TABLE Capital Appropriation A Expansion – TCEF November, Fee Summary (TCEF) 2017 $ $ 10M 2M TABLE B – Proposed TCEF Appropriation
Future TCEF Appropriations $ 8M
Proposed Dry Dirt Creek Placement TCEF Box Culverts in Appropriation Realigned Lemay November, Right-of-Way 2017 $ $ $ 2.0.0.0M 6M 5M
Right-Total Coordination Cost of-Way for for Acquisitions 2018 Future Construction Cost south Saving of Opportunities Opportunities Vine Drive $ $ $ 0.1.0.3M 4M 6M
2.4
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Public Outreach and Engagement
14
• Numerous Staff
Presentations from
February, 2016 to date
• September, 2017 Open
House – Local Residents
• Late, 2017 / Early, 2018
– Broaden the
Discussions with Key
Stakeholders
2.4
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Next Steps
15
• $2M TCEF Appropriation
Ordinance before Council in
November, 2017
• November 20 Council
Finance Committee Meeting
for Funding Options
• Continued Public Outreach
• 60% Design
2.4
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
Questions
16
• Does Council support the staff recommendation for a
bridge over BNSF and Vine Drive?
• Does Council support a November, 2017 $2M
appropriation of TCEF reserves to fund continued ROW
acquisition and construction opportunities in 2018?
2.4
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 24, 2017
Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Program Coordinator
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Metropolitan District Policy Changes. (Part One)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and consider changes to the City policy concerning Service Plans for Title 32
Metropolitan (Metro) Districts to better align City policy with desired outcomes. This is part one of a two part
discussion. Part One will emphasize how metro districts function and how other communities are utilizing metro
districts.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking general direction from Council on what areas of Metropolitan District policy still need additional
clarification and what Council would like to see brought before them at the November 28 work session regarding
Metropolitan Districts. The second work session will be more specifically focused on considering policy changes
to the current Metropolitan District policy in the City of Fort Collins.
Specific questions to be answered by Council are as follows:
1. What does City Council want to achieve with the City's Metropolitan District Policy?
2. What, if any, additional information would City Council request staff to provide on Metro Districts?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Metro districts are a preferred public financing tool used to pay for public infrastructure and/or services which the
municipality is not able or unwilling to provide, or provide in a reasonable time frame, address challenging site
conditions, and/or allow for unique and amenitized development. More broadly, the tool may be used to further
community specific objectives through private development, such as a specific form of land use pattern,
sustainability goals, and other community goals. The following is a list of potential community benefits that may
be achieved with metro districts:
Public Infrastructure. Finance and construct critical and necessary public infrastructure. When a metro
district finances the cost of the infrastructure, that cost is borne by the residents and businesses that benefit
directly from the infrastructure and development. As per the City’s existing policy, the public infrastructure to
be financed and built by a metro district should not be that which is basic and normally required to be financed
and built by a developer (i.e., the intention is to address extraordinary infrastructure, enhancements and/or
challenges).
Deliver on City Plan, subarea plan objectives for public and private development. The City is a planned
community with high standards and expectations for development. A metro district may be used to support
those community outcomes, as specified by City planning and strategic policy documents. This assistance is
more critical in today’s high-cost and challenging re/development environment. Used judiciously, a metro
district may allow the City to leverage greater public outcomes consistent with community objectives.
Development Efficiency (financial and other). A metro district may be used to enable efficiencies financial
or otherwise. Financial efficiency is achieved through lower financing costs (tax exempt bond issues, and
3
Packet Pg. 85
October 24, 2017 Page 2
generally, financing that is an alternative to equity financing). Development efficiency may not be the primary
reason for City support, but it’s a notable outcome. Other efficiencies may be particular to a development
project, e.g., a non-potable water irrigation system that significantly reduces the demand for treated water.
Sustainability (environmental, social, economic) Outcomes. Sustainability is a top priority for the City
and a metro district may be utilized to support these objectives, examples include: net zero development,
solar/geo thermal facilities, higher portion and/or quality of open space, development which results in high
value job creation that will catalyze other economic activity, etc.
Unique Community and/or Amenitized Development. A metro district may be utilized to enable a unique
development opportunity (e.g., Foothills Mall redevelopment, substantial community facility such as a stadium
development, or other pubic facility) and/or development with significant amenity offerings.
A number of development projects are currently considering the use of a metropolitan district (“metro district”) to
offset various infrastructure, public improvement costs, and to achieve other development outcomes. Many of
these requests are for projects where a majority or significant component of the development includes residential.
The current Metropolitan District Policy (“Policy”) adopted by City Council discourages residential projects from
using this public finance tool. Additionally, there are other Policy elements that Council may want to revisit.
Full City Policy Summary
In July 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-069 establishing the guidelines and parameters under
which City staff is to review and evaluate metro district service plans filed with the City (the Policy) (Attachment
1). While the Policy provides guidance to the Council in making its decision of whether or not to approve a
service plan, the Policy makes it clear that it is intended to only be a guide for Council and that nothing in the
Policy “is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit the discretion of City Council, which retains full discretion
and authority regarding the terms and limitations of all District Service Plans.”
The guidelines and parameters set in the Policy for evaluating metro district service plans include:
Total assessed value of the taxable improvements within the metro district at full build-out should be at
least $10 million plus CPI increases since 2008
Development should be “predominantly commercial,” meaning no less than 90% non-residential and no
more than 10% residential
Bias against using metro district to fund “basic infrastructure improvements normally required from new
development”
Service plan should “enumerate and describe all powers” of the district for which there is a demonstrated
need and those powers not needed should not be approved in the plan
The district should not have the power of eminent domain
40 mills should be the “Maximum Mill Levy” for both debt service and district operations and
maintenance
District’s “Financial Plan” should be prepared by an investment bank or financial advisor listed in “Bond
Buyer’s Market Place.”
Financial plan should include a “Total Debt Limitation” for the district that should not exceed “100% at
projected maximum debt capacity as shown in the Financial Plan”
Service plan should include an “Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan”
3
Packet Pg. 86
October 24, 2017 Page 3
No development fees may be charged by the district unless identified with particularity in service and
financial plan.
Bonded indebtedness should be limited to what can be serviced by the Maximum Mill Levy
All debt under financial plan should be issued within 15 years of the district’s formation
Debt issued should have a 30-year maximum maturity date, except for a refunding that results in net
present value savings
All debt should be paid and district dissolved no more than 40 years after service plan approved
Service plans should require additional Council approval 20 years after district formation and every 10
years thereafter if the district is to continue to provide operation and maintenance services
No issuance of additional debt if district is in default in payment of existing debt, except to refund debt
If multiple districts are to be used, the proposed absorption of the project and the improvements to be
financed should be reasonably projected to occur over an extended period of time or it should be a
mixed- use project with a minimum of its assessed value derived from non-residential uses
Certain “Material Modifications” of the service plan should be defined in the plan, as well as what are not
considered “Material Modifications” (“Material Modification” to a service plan require prior Council
approval under the Special District Act)
Service plan should require the district to provide the City with an annual report
Service plan should expressly allow City to impose certain sanctions if district is in material default of the
service plan
Again, the Policy provides that it “is intended as a guide only” and not intended “to limit the discretion of
the City Council.” Consequently, the Council is free to waive any of the requirements and limitations
listed above, as well as impose any other reasonable requirements or limitations in the service plan as a
condition of its approval
Metro District General Information Overview
A metro district is a type of special district derived from Colorado’s Special District Act (Title 32, Article 1,
Colorado Revised Statutes). In practice, metro districts are a preferred public financing tool used to pay for public
infrastructure and/or services which the municipality is not able or unwilling to provide, or provide in a reasonable
time frame, address challenging site conditions, and/or allow for unique and amenitized development. More
broadly, the tool may be used to further community specific objectives through private development, such as a
specific form of land use pattern, sustainability goals, and other community goals.
Formation
A metro district is a quasi-governmental entity formed by a district court process following the approval of the
district(s) service plan by the governing body (municipal or county). The process is outlined below:
Step 1: Application of Service Plan Consideration to City
Step 2: City Review/Consideration/Approval
Step 3: Petition by District Electors Filed with Court
Step 4: District Court Hearing - court orders election on organization (board election and financial
matters)
3
Packet Pg. 87
October 24, 2017 Page 4
Step 5: Election - authorizes the creation and elects the district’s first board of directors
*TABOR election and process is also required before a district may take on multiple-fiscal year debt and
levy property taxes.
City Role
When a district is proposed to be organized within the City, the City Council has the authority to approve, approve
with conditions or disapprove the service plan. In exercising this authority, the Council has considerable discretion
and the Council’s decision is subject to judicial review only on the basis that its decision was “arbitrary, capricious
or unreasonable result.”
Through this approval process, the City also has the authority to limit the metro district’s powers and operations
under its service plan, such as by limiting the public infrastructure and services that the district can finance and
provide under the service plan. The City can also require in the service plan that some or all of the public
infrastructure to be constructed be dedicated to the City. For example, utility improvements and streets are
typically dedicated to the municipality, but park and recreation improvements are often not. The City can also
impose in the service plan a maximum cap on the metro district’s mill levy and on the amount of bonds and other
debt the district can issue.
If a metro district takes an action that is a material departure from the requirements or limitations of the approved
service plan, the municipality approving the plan may file an action in court to enjoin that action. Also, the
approved service plan can grant additional enforcement remedies to the municipality.
District Powers/Authorized Uses
State law permits metro districts to be utilized for a broad range of purposes including the construction and
financing of public improvements -transportation, water, sanitary systems, parks and recreation improvements,
and others - and/or the operation and maintenance of these public improvements. They may also perform some
of the functions that property-owner and homeowner associations typically perform, such as covenant
enforcement.
And, unless limited in the service plan, a metro district has these powers: (a) to levy property taxes; (b) impose
fees and other charges for the facilities and services it provides; (c) issue debt, like bonds; (d) exercise the
power of eminent domain; (e) construct authorized public improvements both within and outside its boundaries;
and (f) to provide its services directly or through intergovernmental agreements with other governmental entities,
such as a municipality, county or other metro district.
While metro districts are often used to provide ongoing services, they are more often used to finance public
improvements for the use and benefit of the district’s property owners and residents. Eligible capital costs are
usually financed through the district’s issuance of general obligation bonds paid from the property taxes levied by
the district. When its bonds are properly issued and used for eligible public purposes, the income earned from
them by a bond purchaser can be exempt from the purchaser’s federal and state income taxes. It should be
noted that the municipality is not financially liable for any financial obligations made by a metro district.
The tax-exempt nature of metro district bonds usually results in lower infrastructure financing costs than would
be the case with private financing alternatives. Once the initial infrastructure has been completed, a metro
district will continue to exist while the infrastructure bonds are being paid, but are often dissolved once the bonds
are retired. However, a metro district is permitted, again unless limited by its service plan, to exist in perpetuity in
order to provide certain ongoing services to the district’s inhabitants, such as: trash removal and recycling;
security services; architectural design review and covenant enforcement; maintenance and administration of the
common areas; and the operation and maintenance of the district’s facilities.
Governance, Election Process, and Public Participation
A metro district is a separate governmental entity governed by its elected board of directors (5 or 7 individuals),
subject to the requirements and limitations of its approved service plans, the Special District Act, and other
applicable law. The electors of a district are those individuals who are registered to vote in Colorado who either:
3
Packet Pg. 88
October 24, 2017 Page 5
(1) reside in the district, or (2) own taxable real or personal property within the district (i.e., those that will be
paying the tax within the district).
As a quasi-municipal entity, a Metro district is subject to many of the same transparency and accountability laws
required of a municipality and other Colorado governmental entities, including: Colorado Open Records Act,
Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), and Title 1, C.R.S. pertaining to elections. Elections are held each November or
in May of even-numbered years. A notice of election must be provided to eligible electors, designate the location
for regular meetings, current financial information, and the date of election. In practice, a developer will typically
have control of the district(s) through the buildout phase of a project, after which point it's common for residents
and/or business owners to assume control.
The public has various opportunities to interface with the board. Metro District boards have regular open meetings
and publish regular annual and financial reports that are available to the public. These reports are submitted to
the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for review.
Additionally, if a property is purchased by a new resident, disclosure of special taxes, debt obligation, and location
in a Metro District must be provided to the buyer upon time of sale (38-36.7-101, C.R.S; 10-11-122 C.R.S).
Miscellaneous
Metro Districts vs. Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs)
o Metro districts and HOA’s are similar, but ultimately differ in their legal structure and outcomes
that can be achieved. A key difference between the two organizations is that a metro district is a
public entity, subject to public accountability requirements of the state. This includes Colorado
Open Meeting Laws (§24-6-402, C.R.S.), Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), requirements for
the adoption and publishing of annual budgets (§29-1-106, C.R.S.), the provision of public
information regarding the district (§32-1-809, C.R.S.), and the district is subject to Colorado’s
Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). As a private, non-profit corporation, a HOA is only accountable
to its membership and is not subjected to the public accountability laws listed above. The
adoption of an annual budget is required, but audits are only required after reaching certain
financial thresholds.
o Metro districts have a broader focus on the public benefit of financed amenities. Under a metro
district, all district facilities must generally remain open to the public. With this stipulation in mind,
metro districts are authorized to construct, maintain, and operate public improvements such as
streets, water, sewer, infrastructure, park and recreational improvements, which a HOA is not
generally tasked with. HOA improvements are primarily focused on covenant enforcement,
design review, trash removal, and general upkeep services.
o Revenue generation is also a key difference between the two entity types. In a metro district,
revenue can be generated through ad valorem property taxes, which are tax deductible by
residents. These districts also have the ability to issue tax exempt bonds and are eligible for a
variety of government grants that can potentially lower the costs of funding. In an HOA, revenue
is generated primarily through fees and assessments on residents within the community.
Whereas property tax is much easier to collect, there is a greater chance that HOA fees will go
unpaid.
o These differences between metro districts and HOAs allow them to be used for different desired
outcomes. A metro district, with its taxing authority, public accountability standards, public benefit
requirements, and legal protections, make it a preferable mechanism to fund public infrastructure
projects such as streets, water, sanitation, and other public goods in a district. An HOA,
conversely, is better suited to provide beatification and improvements to private property within a
residential community.
Risk Considerations
o Municipal Risk: The City has no legal or obligation for any financial obligations of a metro district.
Legal and industry financial professionals are not aware of any instances where metro district
3
Packet Pg. 89
October 24, 2017 Page 6
default/failure/distress has indirectly impacted a municipality’s credit rating.
o Risk of Failure: Due in part to changes in state law pertaining to special districts, the risk of
failure is very low. As per Colorado Department of Local Affairs records, there has been only one
recorded bankruptcy filing for a metropolitan district since 2000 (and this petition was later
rejected by the court).
o Financial Distress: Financial distress can occur, however, the effect of financial distress is most
often a non-event. As per state law, with few exceptions metro districts can only commit a limited
tax revenue stream (i.e., a limited mill levy) to service debt. If a payment is unable to be made,
the unpaid principal and interest is added to the principal balance of the debt. This means that as
long as a district is levying at the maximum authorized rate and complying with other loan
covenants, the bonds are generally not in default. This contrasts with what occurred in the late
1980’s and early 1990’s following an economic down turn when approximately one dozen districts
filed for bankruptcy. At that time, metro district debt was a general obligation and not limited by a
specific mill levy. This resulted in districts being forced to dramatically raise mill levies in an
attempt to meet required debt service and forestall default, which in the midst of a market down
turn, very likely exacerbated the situation.
o Political Risk: As stated above, the risk of failure is very low and the impact of a financially
distressed district may largely be limited to the extension of the payment term. That said, should
a metro district fail to deliver on its commitments, residents/property owners may have an
expectation that the municipality will step in to assume the district’s responsibilities and the
residents could bring political pressure on the City’s leaders to do so.
Further, with the higher property taxes from metro districts it has been hypothesized that citizens
may be less willing to pass additional local tax initiatives. There are a number of communities
that utilize metro districts to a significant degree (see Regional and State Wide Use, below) and
yet evidence of this relationship has not been produced. With limited and focused use this
hypothetical risk would seem even more remote for Fort Collins.
o Other Risk Considerations.
Underwriting / Market Requirements: There are considerable underwriting and market
requirements for district debt issuance. The earlier in the development process the
greater the risk and associated market/underwriting requirements - greater debt coverage
and reserves, higher interest rates, etc.
Basic Infrastructure Assurances: The city requires development to construct essential
infrastructure according to the obligations of the Development Agreement and the
Development Construction Permit and approved construction plans. This is assured with
a bond, letter of credit, or cash, according to City requirements. A district service plan
also requires that the infrastructure be constructed to the City’s standards.
Financial Phasing: For financial and other reasons it’s very common for metro districts to
phase both the financing and construction of improvements. This phasing can mitigate
risk through the incremental financing and construction of improvements.
Development Plan Changes: The nature of a majority of the proposed improvements is
such that they may be scaled down to account for buildout / product absorption issues
(e.g., a community center may be delayed, downsized, or eliminated in response to
market conditions).
Regional and Statewide Use
o Metro districts are the most common special district utilized in Colorado. Currently there are
approximately 1,576 metro districts active state wide. Use of metro districts is most highly
concentrated in Adams and Arapahoe County, immediately east of Denver. In these two counties
alone, there are 454 metro districts.
o The use of metro districts by communities can generally be divides into two categories: 1)
utilization as part of the normal course of development to provide basic infrastructure in addition
to enhancements and community amenities; 2) targeted utilization for enhanced development
outcomes, including delivering non-basic infrastructure, providing development amenities,
achieving mixed-use development, and/or other land-use outcomes.
3
Packet Pg. 90
October 24, 2017 Page 7
Metro district usage varies significantly by community. The following table highlights usage by
community on an land area basis (metro district land area to total municipal land area):
% of municipal land area # of metro districts
Regional
Fort Collins 0.5% 3
Loveland 13% 26
Greeley 2% 3
Johnstown 22% 18
Timnath 50% 18
Windsor 42% 52
State
Aurora 27% 205
Denver 10% 45
Littleton 8% 6
Longmont 1% 3
Challenges of the Current Policy
The following policy points have been highlighted for potential consideration for modification:
Commercial v. Residential Use - Existing policy largely limits the use of metro districts to commercial
development, excluding residential and even most mixed-use projects.
Mill Levy Cap - Existing Policy limits the maximum total mill levy for both debt service and operation and
maintenance to 40 mills. This cap is more conservative than most other communities that were benchmarked
and may preclude utilizing metro districts for more substantial infrastructure undertakings (e.g., non-potable
water irrigation systems, substantial road improvements, etc.). According to those communities that were
researched, community limits are more typically 50-65 mills.
District Dissolved after 40 years and ongoing Council Approvals - Existing policy states that all debt must be
paid and the district must be dissolved no more than 40 years after service plan approval. The policy also
states that a service plan will be subject re-approval by City Council 20 years after district formation and every
10 years thereafter if the district is to continue to provide operation and maintenance services. These
provisions largely preclude districts with ongoing operations and maintenance, e.g., a non-potable water
irrigation system, community centers, pools, or other instances where there is a definite need for ongoing
operations and maintenance.
Staff Evaluation Framework - The Policy provides a number of explicit policy provisions, but otherwise lacks
guidance for Staff’s evaluation. Much of this can be formalized within internal procedures with reference to
the Policy at a more general, principled level. Specifically, the Policy could be updated to include and
improve community outcomes with metro districts.
Other Process Improvements - To facilitate a metro district application and review, a number of process
improvements may be made. These may include utilization of a model service plan to streamline legal
review, formal application and process to facilitate staff review, schedule requirements to set review and
timeline expectations, and an updated fee schedule to help address the resource needs associated with
increased interest and use of metro districts.
3
Packet Pg. 91
October 24, 2017 Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
1. Metro District Policy Summary (PDF)
2. DOLA Metro Districts Overview (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 92
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.1
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Metro District Policy Summary (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
z METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Metro District Study Session – City of Loveland
July 11, 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
COLORADO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
3,734 Active Local
Governments (07/05/17)
Source: DOLA Local Government Information
62 Counties
2 City & Counties
270 Municipalities
178 School Districts
1,576 Metropolitan Districts
254 Fire Districts
270 Water, Sanitation, or Water &
Sanitation Districts
56 Library Districts
1,060+ other districts of more than 60
different types
3.2
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32, ARTICLE 1
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
9 Ambulance
254 Fire Protection
38 Health Service
1,576 Metropolitan Districts
55 Park & Recreation
69 Sanitation
78 Water
123 Water & Sanitation
Available Fire District Boundaries
3.2
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32, ARTICLE 1
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
Two or more of the following services:
• Fire protection
• Mosquito control
• Parks and recreation;
• Safety protection
• Sanitation
• Solid waste
disposal/collection/transportation
• Street improvement
• Television relay and translation
• Transportation
• Water Available Metropolitan District Boundaries
3.2
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32 ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Legislative Declaration of Colorado’s “Special District Act”
To serve a public use and promote the health, safety, prosperity,
security, and general welfare of the inhabitants of such district and
of the people of the state of Colorado. C.R.S. 32-1-102
3.2
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32 ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Through an election and by District Court Order, a governmental
entity (political subdivision) is formed which is separate from the city
or county.
Independent governmental body elected by the eligible electors of
the district with ability to:
• charge rates, tolls, fees and levy taxes
• enter into contracts
• incur debt
• apply for grants
3.2
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32 ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Formation of District Approved at an Election of Eligible Electors
Eligible Elector:
• An elector is a person not a corporation, partnership, or trust.
• A registered voter in the State of Colorado and
• A resident of the district OR
• Owner (or spouse/civil union partner) of taxable real or
personal property within boundaries of the district.
• A person who is obligated to pay taxes under a contract to
purchase taxable property in the boundaries of the district.
3.2
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32 ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Entity exists in perpetuity unless ...
• Dissolution: district board, elector petition, municipal application
or petition
• Consolidation
• DLG administrative dissolution for specific statutory failings
3.2
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32 ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Special Districts must comply with State requirements including:
• Audits
• Budgets
• Elections and Governing Body (Board of Directors)
• Service Plan
• Open Records and Meetings
• Annual Notice to Electors (a.k.a. Transparency Notice)
• TABOR
3.2
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
TITLE 32 ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
DOLA/DLG has limited oversight of Special Districts
• Annual Budgets and Regular Elections
• Annual Levy (Statutory Property Tax Revenue Limit / “5.5% Limit)
• DLG may administratively dissolve district for missing budgets,
elections, audits (as long as no outstanding financial obligations)
• Approving Authority has limited oversight; typically reserved to
approval of and requirements in Service Plan
3.2
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
DOLA & DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DOLA.COLORADO.GOV
3.2
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
3.2
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (LGIS)
3.2
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
New 32‐1 Districts 17 54 24 62 51 96 43 160 131 229 102 112 61 53 28 35 59 65 64 104
Total 32‐1 Districts 913 956 967 1,018 1,065 1,150 1,178 1,330 1,448 1,667 1,753 1,857 1,893 1,939 1,954 1,985 2,031 2,086 2,133 2,227
‐
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Growth in Number of 32‐1 Special Districts 1997 to 2016
New 32‐1 Districts
Total 32‐1 Districts
3.2
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Top 5 Counties for Title 32-1’s
Ambulance
Districts
Fire
Protection
Districts
Health
Service
Districts
(Hospital)
Metro-
politan
Districts
Park &
Recreation
Districts
Sanitation
Districts
Water &
San
Districts
Water
Districts Total
Arapahoe 9 228 7 9 17 6 273
Weld 25 231 3 2 1 7 267
Adams 10 226 5 14 3 253
Douglas 1 9 193 2 1 15 3 215
El Paso 20 161 5 6 8 191
(7)
Larimer 16 3 106 2 5 1 8 141
3.2
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: DOLA Metro Districts Overview (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
1
Metro District Policy Discussion
Josh Birks and Tom Leeson
10-24-17
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Questions for Council Finance Committee
• What does City Council want to achieve with the City's Metropolitan
District Policy?
• What, if any, additional information would City Council like staff to
provide on Metro Districts?
2
3.3
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Introduction
3
5/15 Council
Finance Committee
• Direction to bring additional info
and potential policy changes
8/29 Council
Finance Committee
• Preview options; solicit input
from the Committee
10/24 Work Session • Education to Council
11/28 Work Session
• Discussion of policy
changes with Council
3.3
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Metro District Basics
A Special District that can be used to finance,
construct, operate public improvements and/or
services
Examples:
• Critical/lacking street infrastructure
• Non-potable water systems
• Sanitation facilities/infrastructure
• Parks/Recreation facilities
• Parking structures
• Operations and maintenance
4
3.3
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
How Do Metro Districts Work?
5
Service Plan Submittal to City District Court Petition
Election held
Districts are authorized to levy taxes and fees, issue
debt, construct public improvements, provide services,
and have the powers of eminent domain, if authorized
Governed by a 5 or 7 member elected board from
among the district electorate (reside in the district, own
taxable real/personal property within the district)
Formation
Authority
Governance
3.3
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Prevalence
• 1,576 metro districts state wide
• Commonly used for:
• normal process of
development and to
provide basic
infrastructure;
-OR-
• enhanced outcomes /
public services;
6
% of municipal land area # of metro districts
Regional
Fort Collins 0.5% 3
Loveland 13% 26
Greeley 2% 3
Johnstown 22% 18
Timnath 50% 18
Windsor 42% 52
State
Aurora 27% 205
Denver 10% 45
Littleton 8% 6
Longmont 1% 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Example: Stapleton
• Used to finance local streets,
drainage, pocket parks and
community amenities
• Focused use of metro district
to achieve desired community
outcomes
7
Photo Credit: Denise Gammon, Holland Partner Group
3.3
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Financial Risk Considerations
• Metro district finances are separate – No City
obligation/recourse
• Low risk of failure and distress (commensurate
political risk)
• Limited tax obligation, not general obligation
• Underwriting / Market requirements
• Existing development/construction
assurances
• Phasing and adaptability
• Audits and independent certification
8
3.3
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
City Role
• Considerable discretion to limit Metro District
powers and operations
• Mill levy limit;
• Limit public infrastructure and services that can
be provided;
• Limit powers and operations;
• Can require that some or all of public
infrastructure be dedicated to the City
• May use court process to enforce service plan
compliance
9
3.3
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Governance
10
• Elections conducted biannually
• Eligible electors must reside or own
taxable personal property in the district
• Governed by a 5 or 7 member Board of
Directors
• Often developer controlled through
buildout
3.3
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Transparency
• Subject to many of the same transparency
and accountability rules and regulations as
other Colorado governmental entities
• Regular public meetings, open records, and
annual reports
• Disclosure requirements associated with real
estate purchase
11
3.3
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
November Policy Discussion
Metro District Policy Objectives:
• Deliver on City Plan and sub-area
plan objectives
• Advance sustainability goals
• Facilitate unique community
development
• Finance and construct critical and
lacking public infrastructure
12
3.3
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Questions for Council Finance Committee
• What does City Council want to achieve with the City's Metropolitan
District Policy?
• What, if any, additional information would City Council request staff to
provide on Metro Districts?
13
3.3
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
14
BACKUPS
3.3
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Challenges of Current Policy
Opportunities
15
• Address past exemptions
• Proactively develop policy that
accommodates future district
applications
• Align policy with community goals
and priorities
• Allow for new infrastructure and
services to be provided in districts
Opportunities
for
Improvement
Many past
exemptions
have been
made
District
opportunities
limited by
90/10 ratio
Future
exemption
requests are
expected to
increase
3.3
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Metro Districts vs. HOAs
16
Metropolitan Districts HOAs
Political subdivisions of the state of Colorado Private, non-profit corporations
District subject to all public accountability
requirements of the City of Fort Collins (i.e. open
meeting laws, open records requests, etc.)
Accountability only to dues paying members
District subject to all financial accountability
requirements of the City of Fort Collins
Adoption of an annual budget required
All district facilities must generally remain open
to the public
Exists as a private entity, can limit membership
and use of facilities
Revenue can be generated through property tax,
which are tax deductible by residents
Revenue generated through fees
3.3
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
Existing Policy Highlights
17
Commercial/Residential Ratio
Mill Levy Caps
Debt
Limitations
Funding
Limitations
Development should be predominately
commercial (greater than 90%)
Maximum mill levy set at 40 mills
All debt must be paid and district dissolved
after no more than 40 years
Bias against using districts to fund basic
infrastructure improvements
3.3
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6029 : Metropolitan District Policy Changes (Part One))
+
2
111 0
+
2
0
PC 103+98.58
P
T
1
06
+
97.76
2
0
+
00
25
+
00
30
+
0
0
3
5
+
00
40
+
0
0
45
+
00
50
+
00
5
5
+
00
60
+
00
65
+
0
0
7
0
+
00
75
+
0
0
8
0
+
00
8
5
+
00
90
+
00
90
+
46
P
C
21
+
05
.
9
3
P
T
26
+
0
3
.
2
1
P
C
28
+
60
.
91
P
T
4
0
+
23
.
37
P
C
48
+
43.27
P
T
55
+
34
.69
P
C
6
2
+
82.74
P
T
6
4
+
7
6.
4
9
P
C
7
2
+
4
0.67
P
T
79
+
0
5.
78
P
C
81
+
08
.
08
P
T
89
+
6
6.09
T
T
0’ 200’ 400’ 800’
SUBDIVISION
PROPOSED CAPSTONE
S
.
LE
M
AY
AV
E
.
E. LINCOLN AVE.
BUCKINGHAM ST.
E. VINE DR.
SUNIGA DR.
N. LEMAY AVE. (REALIGNED)
RETAINING WALL
BEGIN BRIDGE
END BRIDGE
BOX CULVERT
CONCRETE
PROPOSED ROW
LEMAY AVENUE PROJECT LAYOUT
PARK
FUTURE
BREWERY/MINI STORAGE
PROPOSED
KEY
EXISTING RR
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROJECT FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED ROW LINE
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Location Map (6039 : Realigned Lemay and Suniga)