HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/28/2017 - METROPOLITAN DISTRICT POLICY CHANGES (PART TWO)DATE:
STAFF:
November 28, 2017
Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Program Coordinator
Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Metropolitan District Policy Changes. (Part two).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and consider changes to the City policy concerning Title 32 Metropolitan
(Metro) Districts to better align the policy with desired outcomes and introduce other process improvements.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking input and direction from Council on potential revisions to the City’s current policy concerning
metro districts. More particularly, staff seeks Council’s input on revising the policy to make a number of process
improvements, including changes to make the policy more outcomes focused.
Improving the policy in this way will:
1. provide greater clarity to the development community on what Fort Collins is looking for
2. inform staff’s evaluation process
3. provide an improved framework for Council’s review and evaluation of a proposed district.
4. Improve alignment with City goals and objectives
Specific questions for Council:
1. What does City Council want to achieve with the City’s Metropolitan District Policy?
2. Does Council support amending the Metropolitan District Policy in the following ways?
a. Outcomes-focused (non-prescriptive)
b. Highly selective review process
c. Other process improvements (e.g., model service plan)
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In response to increased interest in utilizing metro districts to address infrastructure and development challenges
and the opportunity to introduce a number of process improvements to the existing policy adopted in 2008
(Attachment 1), staff proposes that Council consider potential revisions to its existing policy. Generally, staff
proposes revising the policy to:
1. Re-orient the policy towards outcomes (pairing back some prescriptive elements of the existing
policy).
2. Incorporate a robust and highly selective review process to better screen and evaluate proposals.
3. Introduce additional process improvements and best practices gleaned from peer research (e.g.,
model service plan, application process, etc.)
Proposed Policy Purpose Statement and Key Principles
The work session and materials focus on a proposed new/updated policy at a principled level. With Council’s
input, and if directed, out of this discussion staff will expand upon and develop a draft policy for Council’s review.
November 28, 2017 Page 2
This may be presented to Council for consideration as part of the adoption process by Ordinance, or may be
presented at a future Council Finance or Work Session meeting.
Proposed metro district policy purpose statement:
The City of Fort Collins may consider the use of a metropolitan district where a district will deliver
significant public benefit that aligns with the goals and objectives of the City. The City will
evaluate a district proposal based on its ability to affect enhanced development outcomes in the
following areas:
1. Deliver on Strategic Planning Priorities: Deliver on priorities specified by long term strategic
planning documents (City Plan, Strategic Plan, Climate Action Plan, Affordable Housing Plan,
Economic Health Office Plan, Sub-Area Plans, etc., as amended and updated);
2. Advance Sustainability Outcomes: Sustainable design, multimodal transportation, water
conservation, infill and redevelopment, community resiliency, energy efficiency, renewable
energy, housing affordability, enhanced employment opportunities, economic vitality, etc.
3. Produce High Quality and Unique Development: High quality design, walkable and pedestrian
friendly, transit and multimodal oriented, use of quality construction materials, compelling public
spaces, mixed-use (live, work, play integration), etc.
4. Provide Lacking and/or Enhanced Public Infrastructure. Address key and significant infrastructure
challenges, provide enhancements such as urban design elements, beautification, etc.
Enhanced development outcomes must be specific and sufficiently detailed for Staff review and
Council consideration. Commitments will be assured through the entitlement process and/or in
the district service plan that must be approved by Council.
The City will only consider metropolitan districts that provide unique or enhanced public benefit
which could not be practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which
would be construed as competing or duplicative.
District approval will be at Council’s sole discretion and nothing in this document is intended, nor
shall it be construed, to limit the discretion of City Council.
Proposed Key Policy Principles
• Selective Use. The City wishes to set a high standard for use of metropolitan districts, thereby limiting
use.
• Evaluation – process, not prescription. To preserve creativity and flexibility, and in acknowledgement
of the wide-ranging potential uses of metropolitan districts, the City will rely on a robust evaluation
process that will assess proposals in the following ways:
o Outcomes and public benefit evaluation via interdisciplinary staff team (Planning, Finance,
Sustainability Services, and others as needed).
o Necessity of a district, and potential alternatives.
o Conformance with model service plan and standards.
Note: This is the evaluation process only, approval authority belongs to City Council, at its discretion.
• Outcomes Focused. The policy will be written with a focus towards outcomes and will pair back some of
the prescriptive elements of the existing policy.
• Process Improvements.
o Multi-step application process to provide early vetting and feedback on potential proposals.
o Model service plan for streamlined legal review and greater transparency of City requirements.
November 28, 2017 Page 3
o Revised fee structure to accommodate multi-step application process and add fees for non-
standard review, service plan amendments, etc.
o Inclusion of other miscellaneous best practices (e.g., resident transition plan, improved
disclosures, etc.).
• Other Notable Policy Provisions.
o Aggregate Max Mill Levy: 50 mills, of which no more than 10 mills may be used for operations
and maintenance; additional mills within total limit may be considered when district is used in lieu
of a homeowners association. A 50 mill max is consistent with other communities around the
state. (This represents a 10 mill increase from the 2008 policy).
o Governance: It is the intent of the City that owner/resident control of districts occur as early as
feasible. The City may consider authority structures to accommodate this. When feasible, the
City will discourage the use of control districts (aka managing districts).
o Debt Mill Levy Term: Debt must be discharged no more than 40 years after approval of the
service plan, with some provision for refundings when that is in the best interest of the district and
future owners and residents. (Generally consistent with the existing policy). [Denver – 40 years,
except for refundings w/ End User controlled district]
o Financial Plan must be certified and reviewed by an independent municipal finance advisor as to
whether debt issuances are in the best interest of the district at the time of issuance.
Many concepts of the existing policy will remain either in the policy, or as part of the model service plan. The
areas where the proposed policy differs, as currently conceived, results from a shift away from the prescriptive
approach of the current policy to an outcome based approach that relies on process. Two key changes are:
1. Elimination of the provision limiting district use to projects that are no less than 90% commercial by
assessed value.
Rationale: There are a number of instances where Council may wish to authorize a district for a mixed-
use or residential project. Staff suggests the alternative approach of having high standards and a
rigorous review process versus restriction with consideration for exceptions.
2. Elimination of the provision that states the City will have a bias against using metro districts to fund “basic
infrastructure improvements required from new development”.
Rationale: Limiting district use to extraordinary infrastructure improvements would significantly limit the
applications for districts and likely preclude projects which might otherwise be highly desirable. Both
existing fully functional metro districts in Fort Collins (Harmony Tech Park and Foothills Mall) were used to
fund basic infrastructure. Peer research did not find any other communities that restrict district use in this.
Community Research and Takeaways
Regional and State Wide Use
o Metro districts are the most common special district utilized in Colorado. Currently there are
approximately 1,576 metro districts state wide.
o Metro district use varies widely by community (Attachment 2), but generally the landscape can
be divided into those that are using it as part of the routine development process, or those that
are using it in a more focused and selective manner.
o The following table highlights community usage according to total number of districts (as per
State Department of Local Affairs mapping) and on a land area basis (metro district land area as
a percentage of total municipal land area):
November 28, 2017 Page 4
% 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
To better understand community use and outcomes, staff interviewed 9 different communities along the front
range. Some of the key takeaways are as follows:
• Most communities reported positive experiences and outcomes with metro districts, though some
challenges were noted as well. Specifically, several reported issues with residents/owners not being
aware that their property was within a district until after purchasing (note: there are state disclosure
requirements that are part of a property transaction, but they can be lost in the complexity and volume of
materials that are part of a real estate transaction). Additionally, there was a community example where
a high mill levy charge and slow delivery of a community amenity caused issue with a number of
residents.
• Mill Levy Limits – Combined mill levies ranged from 39 to 65 mills, with most communities restricting to a
combined 50 mills. Many communities did not specify a separate operations and maintenance mill levy
cap; several communities specify a 10 mill cap.
• Model Service Plan – Most communities are using a model service plan.
• Several communities reported at least some challenges with residents/owners having awareness that
their property was within a district. There are state disclosure requirements that are part of a property
transaction, but they can be lost in the complexity and volume of materials that are part of a real estate
transaction.
• Owner/Tenant/Resident Transition Plan – Improve board transition through the use of a transition plan
that is required by the service plan.
• Fees – City charges for service plan review varied, with most communities charging between $2,500 and
$5,000. The City’s fee is currently $12,000 ($2,000 fee and $10,000 deposit).
• Best practices in the area of transparency and accountability.
• Impact on new tax appetite – None of the 9 communities reported seeing any indication that the existence
of a metro district had an impact on a resident’s willingness to support additional tax/bond initiatives.
Staff anecdotally evaluated electoral results from Larimer, Adams, and Arapahoe County (all counties
with high usage of Metro Districts) and found little to no correlation between the presence of Metro
Districts and the passage/rejection of tax and bond measures in communities with high rates of Metro
District use.
Note: Summary table of community information and notes is enclosed (Attachment 3).
Existing 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). 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,
November 28, 2017 Page 5
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”
• 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)
November 28, 2017 Page 6
• 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)
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
November 28, 2017 Page 7
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:
(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
November 28, 2017 Page 8
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
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.
November 28, 2017 Page 9
▪ 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).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Existing Policy (PDF)
2. Case Studies (PDF)
3. Metro Districts Research Table (PDF)
4. Presentation (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Case Studies
To better understand how districts can be used to help finance projects that are highly amenitized
and aligned with the community objectives of the City of Fort Collins, several case studies were
compiled by staff. Examples were gathered primarily from the Denver Metropolitan area, as
Metro District use in Northern Colorado is primarily used to support the normal course of
development activity.
Case Study One: Bel Mar
Location: Lakewood, CO
This project was facilitated partly
through the creation of three metro
districts to aide phased development
starting in 2000. This development
currently offers a variety of amenities
and uses for its residents and the
community at large. These include:
• 1.1 Million square feet of retail space
• 900,000 square feet of office space
• 1300 residential units
• 250-room hotel
• 9 acres of parks, plazas, and other
public spaces
Previously, this property was the site of the Villa Italia Mall that had fallen into significant
decline since the 1960’s and classified as a brownfield by 2000. This project created Metro
Districts to finance public improvements and enable the construction of a new mixed-use project
that serves as a centerpiece for community events, gatherings, and serves as a catalyst for the
City of Lakewood to reimagine their community sense of place and redevelop a underperforming
commercial area within the city.
In this project, Metro Districts aided with the provision of:
• Streets infrastructure
• Environmental Remediation
• Public plaza, sidewalk, and other right of way improvements
While most of the case studies staff examined have been new projects, the Bel Mar project has
been a long-standing district, with its first phase completed in 2004. Since the creation of phase
one, the City of Lakewood has been able to gain a more productive use of the former Villa Italia
Mall space, increasing the assessed valuation of the surrounding area by 500% from 2000.
ATTACHMENT 2
Additionally, vacancy rates for the residential apartments and townhomes in the project were
reported at 13% for 2016.
Case Study Two: Geos Neighborhood
Location: Arvada, CO
The GEOS project is a unique net-zero energy mixed-use community. This project is currently
under construction and when finished, will include:
• Various net-zero housing types
including houses, townhomes, and
apartments
• Public squares/gathering places
• Dedicated commercial space for
small businesses
• Preserved open space
• Community solar infrastructure
• Electric vehicle charging stations
• Water-efficient landscaping
This is a smaller-scale project than Bel-Mar, at only 25 acres, but demonstrates the broad range
of amenities that can be provided by a metro district, including some that may align with the land
use and sustainability goals of the City of Fort Collins. Improvements include:
• A ground-source heating system
• Photovoltaic cells and associated electric lines
• 5 acre open space park
• Pocket parks
• Integrated detention system
Note on above image: The Geos Neighborhood is a development that is currently in progress.
Therefore, there are no pictures to be shared of the development at this time. The above image is
an example of a Net Zero housing development, showcasing the possible design/end state of the
Geos project.
ATTACHMENT 2
Case Study Three: Midtown Industrial Center
Location: Denver, CO
This project, located in the North Central
“River North Art District” of Denver is an
example of how a district can be focused
on basic infrastructure to allow for
advanced development outcomes overall.
This project presents an opportunity for
urban revitalization in the previously
depressed and blighted areas within this
district, especially along the Brighton
Avenue corridor north of Broadway
Boulevard and downtown Denver. This
area has received a great amount of
attention from residents, the art
community, and developers alike who see the opportunities present in a new urbanist
development located near the urban core of Denver.
This project is on the smaller side of districts as well, incorporating 17 acres of property around
Brighton Boulevard near the 38
th
and Blake light rail station. This project is also a mixed-use
development with a variety of elements including:
• 600 residential housing units. 80-100 of these units are set aside as affordable artist lofts;
• A 150 room hotel
• 500,000 square feet of office space
• A 60,000 square foot entertainment venue
• 63,000 square feet of greenhouse space
• A parking structure with 1200 parking spaces (20-40% private)
• Other public space amenities such as pocket parks and open seating areas
The Metro District itself is focused on providing basic infrastructure to help achieve
developmental efficiencies and allow the other aspects of this project to be financed. This
includes:
• Public roads
• Public plaza
• Parking Structure
• Landscaping
• Lighting
• Signage
• Benches
ATTACHMENT 2
Case Study Four: Stapleton
Location: Denver, CO
This project originated from the
closure of the Stapleton airport in
Denver following the opening of
Denver International Airport. With
this dramatic shift, the property of
the former Stapleton airport
became a significant development
challenge. Large portions of
runway would need to be cleared,
environmental remediation
conducted, and significant
development costs would be
incurred by any developer looking
to redevelop the area without
additional financing mechanisms.
With this development challenge and the significant interest of the City and County of Denver to
redevelop this area to create a desirable and sustainability-minded, mixed-use community, the
Westerly Creek Metropolitan District was created.
At project buildout, this project includes 4,700 acres of redevelopment, with:
• 12,000 planned housing units, many designed at a variety of LEED standards. The
development is also the largest Energy Star project in Colorado. Additionally, some units
are marked for affordable housing
• 1,074 acres of parks and open space
• 3.3 Million square feet of flex/industrial space
• 10 million square feet of office space
• 2.5 million square feet of retail space
To help meet some of the significant development challenges present with this project, the
Westerly Creek Metro District provided/provides the following public improvements:
• Runway material removal
• Runway site recovery
• Environmental remediation
• Public streets and utilities
• Public parks and pools
ATTACHMENT 2
As another long-standing-district (formed in 2000), staff has been able to see the long-standing
impact of the district and its public improvements. As of 2017, the neighborhood has won a
variety of awards connected to environmental stewardship including:
• LEED Homes Multi-family Development of the Year
• Best Sustainable Developer from Pacific Coast Builders
• 2006 Awards for Excellence from the Urban Land Institute
Case Study Five: Parker-Jordan Metro District
Location: Centennial, CO
This district highlights the
expansiveness of the Metro District
tool to finance public improvements
pertaining to open space preservation
and other public amenties unique to
outdoor recreation and the creation of
neighborhoods that integrate a
variety of land use types. The Parker-
Jordan Metropolitan district is a
project that is coordinated between
the district and the City of Centennial
and primarily supports open space
preservation and parks maintenance. The district and its various projects are spread out over a
1,047 acre space that integrates:
• Traditional residential neighborhoods
• Commercial property
• Open space and parks
• Public access trails.
The district itself is focused primarily on a 107-acre open space development in Centennial.
Created in 2009, the district is focused primarily on the following public improvements:
• Open space development, preservation, and construction
• Trail improvements and maintenance
• Parks and other outdoor amenities
ATTACHMENT 2
Case Study Six: Transit-Oriented Development Projects
Location: Denver, CO
Given the large infrastructure requirements
and regional public benefits that can be
seen from transit-oriented development
(TOD) projects, Metro Districts are
commonly used for TOD projects. These
several large projects within the City and
County of Denver:
• Pena Station
• Broadway Station
• Denver Union Station
The majority of these projects are focused on funding the key infrastructure necessary for the
construction of the stations/stops for light rail access, pedestrian bridges over highways and
arterial roads, and often help the public streets and utility infrastructure for accompanying mixed
use development nearby these stops.
ATTACHMENT 2
Community
# of
Districts
Portion of
the City
within a
Metro
District
Total Mill
Levy Cap
Debt Mill
Levy Cap
O & M Mill
Levy Cap
Debt
Retirement
Fees Notes
Arvada 27 26% 40 mills
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
40 years $2,500
Used for both residential and
commercial
Aurora 205 27% 50 mills
Not
Specified
10 mills 40 years $4,273
Core component of the existing
development process. Districts are
approved at the same time each year.
City and
County of
Denver
45 10% 50 mills
Not
Specified
10 mills 40 years $15,000
Highly selective process. Approved
districts must conform to Denver
comprehensive plan, provide
sustainable design including
multimodal transportation, water
conserving landscape, green building
design, and formation of, and,
participation in transportation
management programs. Recently
revised their Metro District policy
Fort Collins 2 0.47% 40 mills
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
40 years $12,500
Greeley 3 1.63% Not Specified
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
Longmont 2 0.83% 50 mills
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
40 years
$5000+ $1,000
document
review fee
Highly selective process, projects must
be mixed-use.
Loveland 26 13% 65 mills
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
40 years
5000 with a
$10,000 deposit
for future fees
Districts are used to address major
infrastructure gaps, development
challenges, and achieve urban
redevelopment objectives. New
districts have been created in 2017, but
have yet to see development activity.
Timnath 18 50% 50 mills 35 mills
Not
Specified
Not
specified
Development fee
negotiated after
the creation of
the district for
residential
developers.
Districts are used to aid the normal
course of development. Timnath has
had some challenges with insuring the
level of service from developers as well
as ensuring codes are compliant with
Town standards.
Windsor 52 42% 39 mills 35 mills 4 mills 30 years
$1,000 up front
fee with an
additional
$5,000 deposit
for additional
staff, legal, and
consultant time
Districts are used to aid the normal
course of development. Windsor has
experienced concern from residents
regarding transparency of district mill
levies as well as accountability laws
that have since been addressed by
state statute. Windsor has just recently
wrapped up a year long process to
develop a new Metro District policy.
1
Metro District Policy Discussion
Josh Birks and Tom Leeson
11-28-17
Questions for City Council
• What does City Council want to achieve with the City's Metropolitan
District Policy?
• Does Council support amending the Metropolitan District policy in the
following ways:
• Outcomes-focused (non-prescriptive)
• Highly selective review process
• Other process improvements (e.g. model service plan)
2
Introduction
3
5/15 and 8/29
Council Finance
Committee Meetings
• Preview options; solicit input
from the Committee
10/24 Work Session • Overview of Metro
Districts
11/28 Work Session
• TODAY: Discussion of
policy changes
Next Steps • Provide revised policy
for approval
Case Studies: Bel Mar (Lakewood)
• Brownfield redevelopment
• Reimagine a new community
center/public gathering place
• Incentivize “New Suburban”
design
Photo Credit: Congress for New Urbanism 4
Case Studies: GEOS (Arvada)
• Aid in the creation of a net zero
residential community
• Pay for “enhanced”
infrastructure such as:
• Ground source heating system
• Photovoltaic Cells
• 5 acre open space park and
pocket parks
5
Regional Community Findings
• Highly used, mostly positive
performance
• Zero defaults in the area
• Impact on resident tax appetite
– none observed
6
Metro District Policy Context
• City Council is approving
authority
• Policy informs market, staff
review and process, and can
be instructive to Council
Current policy:
• Not outcome-focused/strategic
• Opportunities for process
improvements
7
Opportunities
8
Alignment with
Community Objectives
Creative, unique,
enhanced development
outcomes
More useful policy –
fewer exemptions
Instructive / Outcome Driven Policy
Selective Review Process, Not
Prescription
Best Practices / Process
Improvements
Metro District Policy Objectives
Outcomes
based:
Long term
strategic
priorities
Sustainability
goals
High-
quality/unique
development
Key and
lacking
infrastructure
9
Selective/Robust
review process:
Ensure high
standards
Limited use for
exceptional
projects
Cross-
functional staff
reviews
Ultimate
decision made
by City
Council
Process
Improvements:
Model
service plan
modifications
Application
Process
Fee
Structure
Best
Practices
Principles of Proposed Policy
• Selective Use
• Inter-disciplinary review process
• Multi-step application process
• Model service plan for
streamlined review
• Revised fee structure
• Other process improvements
10
Next Steps
• Confirm policy direction with Council
• Develop policy and model service plan
• Deeper dive with involved departments
• Expand on review/evaluation process
• Legal review
• Development community input
• Present policy for review/adoption – Future Work Session or Council
Meeting
11
Questions for City Council
• What does City Council want to achieve with the City's Metropolitan
District Policy?
• Does Council support amending the Metropolitan District policy in the
following ways:
• Outcomes-focused (non-prescriptive)
• Highly selective review processes
• Other process improvements (e.g. model service plan)
12
13
14
BACKUPS
Case Studies: Midtown
Industrial Center (Denver)
• Redevelopment and infill of the
River North district of Denver
• Need for significant public
infrastructure to be installed
before development could
occur
15
Case Studies: Stapleton (Denver)
• Challenging redevelopment
with little redevelopment
interest
• Used to finance local streets,
drainage, pocket parks, and
pools
• Resulted in an enhanced
development outcome
Photo Credit: Denise Gammon, Holland Partner Group 16
Case Studies: Parker-Jordan (Centennial)
• District used to finance open
space/environmental
conservation outcomes
• Enhanced infrastructure:
• 107 acres of open space
preservation and maintenance
• Trail construction
• Public access easement
• Regional recreation center
17
Case Studies: Pena Station (Denver)
• Transit-oriented development
to enhance development
around DIA
• Enhanced infrastructure:
• Light rail station and platform
• Roadways
• Traffic lights
• Parks, trail systems, open
space
18
Metro Districts vs. HOAs
19
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
ATTACHMENT 3
Not
Specified
$5,000
Very limited use, approved districts
must be in alignment with the City's
comprehensive plan
Johnstown 18 22%
50 mills
commercial,
40 mills
residential
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
20 years
No specific fee
specified, the
district is
responsible for
paying any and
all expenses
relating to
professional
service fees.
Has had challenges with residential-
only districts. O&M costs of these
districts have grown and residents have
expressed frustrations with the Town.
ATTACHMENT 3