Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/04/2018 - PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION 2018-083 APPROVING T
Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 4, 2018 City Council STAFF Josh Birks, Economic Health Director John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Public Hearing and Resolution 2018-083 Approving the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 Consolidated Service Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider a metro district service plan for the Montava Development. The developer of the proposed Montava Development has submitted a service plan to support a proposed development of approximately 988.5 acres located in the northeast portion of the community near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development is anticipated to include 2,000 single family homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office, 88,900 square feet of retail. The project intends to provide 10 percent of housing units in a mix of for rent and for sale affordable housing. In addition, the project will deliver all units as US Department of Energy Certified Zero Energy Ready. A Metro District with a mill levy cap of 60.00 mills has been proposed to support the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Montava is a multi-phase, long-term development proposal located in the northeast portion of Fort Collins. The project is located in the area covered by the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (MVSAP). The project anticipates delivery on several key principals of the MVSAP while also providing a community that follows New Urbanist principles to promote environmentally friendly habits, walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types. Council Finance Follow-Up On August 20, 2018, the Council Finance Committee (CFC) reviewed the proposed Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 (the Service Plan). The Service Plan proposes the creation of seven metropolitan districts (the Metro Districts). The CFC requested additional information on several items: • Water Reduction from Non-Potable Irrigation – It is commonly considered that irrigation water in residential development accounts for 50 percent of total usage during irrigation season. Furthermore, the applicant is working with Dr. Yaling Qian at Colorado State University (CSU) to determine the best plant types and planting approaches to maximize the quality of landscaping and minimize water use. • Origin of On-site Coffin Well Water – No formal name exists for the shallow alluvial aquifer below the proposed project; however, the Water Court of Colorado has deemed the wells to be “non-tributary” meaning that pumping these wells does not negatively impact the river. Furthermore, at full build-out, with conservative water use estimates, the project uses less than one-third of the total decreed well production. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 2 • Gray Water Use – The applicant is working with Dr. Sybil Sharvell at CSU. So far, an approach has not emerged that is a viable economic or practical option. However, the applicant remains committed to implementing gray water use where it proves viable. • Water Source/Use for the Farm – The salinity of the site’s well water is not conducive to growing vegetables. Therefore, the Farm will be served by North Poudre Irrigation Ditch (“NPIC”) water, which has been serving the quarter section south of the farm location for the past several decades. This solution requires acquisition of some water rights and a long-term lease arrangement between the applicant and the City for NPIC usage. • Manufactured Home and Construction – An early concept was to partner with Unity Homes, out of Vermont, to provide manufactured homes for the project that would be assembled in a manufacturing facility on-site. As discussions continued, it will be too difficult to begin the community with this type of housing and construction approach. However, the applicant is looking to streamline permitting and construction process to ensure all homes meet the Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready standard. Project Overview The proposed Metro Districts will support a large-scale (988.5 acres) planned development that will extend the City’s urban growth into the largest remaining undeveloped section of the Ctiy. The project anticipates constructing: • Approximately 4,400 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family); • A town center including 88,900 square feet of retail; • Approximately 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office; • Allocating land for natural areas, schools, and a community park; • A 40-acre organic farm; and • A variety of other public open spaces and trails. The project is generally located between Mountain Vista on the south, Richards Lake Road on the north, Timberline Road on the West and the train tracks on the east. (Attachment 1) The project, called Montava, “Mon” for mountains and “tava” the Ute Indian work for “sun,” uses the MVSAP as its basis for design and development approach. Metro Districts In the Service Plan, Montava proposes to use the Metro Districts to construct critical public infrastructure and other site costs reducing the overall development costs. Service Plan Overview The Service Plan calls for the creation of the seven Metro Districts to work collaboratively to deliver the proposed Montava development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the next 25 plus years and support an estimated population of 11,073. A few highlights about the proposed Service Plan, include: • Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $76 million in 2029, which would be ten years into the phased development and not include full build-out • Aggregate Mill Levy – 60 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments • Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits • Operating Mill Levy – 20 Mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but not limited to: (a) a non- potable irrigation system, and (b) a community-wide “in home” water conservation program • Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $203 million to cover a total a portion of the estimated $325 million in public improvement costs • Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation and/or stormwater improvements Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 3 Public Improvements The Service Plan anticipates using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $203 million to fund all or a portion of the following $325 million in public improvements (details available in Exhibit E and Exhibit H of the Service Plan): • Earthwork – Up to approximately $21.5 million in earthwork and site preparation costs associated with the proposed project, including significant grading associated with stormwater management linked to the Cooper Slough • Streets – Up to approximately $105.3 million to fund local residential streets, alleys, boulevards, and arterials both on- and off-site • Water Improvements – Up to $11.1 million in costs to construct potable water infrastructure both on- and off-site supporting the project • Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Up to $15.7 million in costs associated with constructing the sanitary sewer infrastructure both on- and off-site for the project • Non-potable Water – Up to $13.8 million to construct a non-potable irrigation system to serve the entire development – this infrastructure will significantly reduce the project’s need to acquire water rights and demand on potable water treatment facilities • Storm Sewer Improvements – Up to $10.2 million in costs to construct the main storm sewer system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading is included in the Earthwork amount above) • Recreation Facilities – Up to $8 million in costs to construct on- and off-site public parks, open space, recreation facilities and/or services • Landscaping, Trails, Open Space and Farm Facilities – Up to $44.2 million to install landscaping, construct trails, open space, and farm facilities • Administrative, Miscellaneous, and Engineering – Up to $47 million in costs associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing, planning, and permitting the construction of the public improvements • Contingency – Up to $48 million in contingency assumes a 20 percent factor on top of the costs estimates provide, which are only based on a conceptual design Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not supplied an estimate of non-basic costs. Non-basic costs are assumed to be costs that are not typical for a development of the proposed project’s type and/or size. These costs are therefore considered extraordinary infrastructure costs. While no estimate of non-basic costs has been supplied, the conceptual planning and design of the project has uncovered several extraordinary development conditions, including: • Cooper Slough – The Cooper Slough creates several significant stormwater detention, retention, and water quality issues across the site. These impacts are complicated by the fact that the slough is not consolidated, creating multiple entry points for water during a storm event. The net result is the need to manage the stormwater on the site in a variety of ways that deal with off-site conditions. This consumes a significant portion of land, approximate 150 acres or 15 percent of the project area, reducing the potential return from development and adding cost. • Utility Extension Requirements – The development in the proposed Metro Districts will be served by ELCO and Boxelder Sanitary Sewer, and both are smaller districts that do not have the necessary distribution infrastructure in place to support the proposed development. A significant cost will be associated with extending this infrastructure to serve the site. • Non-potable Irrigation System – The applicant intends to serve 85 percent of the community’s irrigation need through a non-potable system. Constructing, operating, and maintain this system will have significant costs – estimated at $13.8 million to construct. Public Benefits As required by the City’s recently adopted Metro District Policy, the Service Plan will deliver several extraordinary development outcomes that support several public benefits. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 4 Due to the preliminary nature of the development proposal, the Service Plan separates the Public Benefits into two categories: 1. Public Benefits - Items that the Service Plan commits the Project to deliver before issuing debt; and 2. Other Extraordinary Public Benefits - Items that need additional research, design, and evaluation to determine feasibility. These items may or may not be included in a final Approved Development Plan and/or Intergovernmental Agreement alongside the items in the first category; however, they are not commitments the developer can make at this time. Public Benefits: The Public Benefits and, where available, their estimated values are described below (details available in Exhibit J of the Service Plan): • New Urbanist Development – The applicant has designed the project following several key New Urbanist principles which promote environmentally friendly habits, create walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types and job opportunities, including: o Mixed-Use Town Center – Plans include a traditional town center with walkable streets connecting it to surrounding neighborhoods, dense development (commercial and multi-family residential), and community serving retail uses (e.g., grocery, café and restaurants, etc.) o Walkable Neighborhoods – The project is planned as a series of 5-minute walk shed neighborhoods focused either on amenities along its edge (e.g., park, schools, and gardens) or within its boundaries (e.g., playgrounds and pocket parks, transportation facilities, etc.) o Mixture of Housing Types – The project plan calls for three zones of intensity within each neighborhood – each zone will provide a different density and housing type o Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Streets – The projects provides with a pattern of development that encourages walking and provides sidewalk, trail, and bike lane infrastructure to support that pattern of development o Distributing Traffic – The project relies on a grid of streets as an organizing principle – the street system creates walkable block sizes and distributes traffic over a broader area reducing impacts and congestion on collectors and arterials o Integration of Market Rate and Affordable Housing – The project plans to distribute subsidized affordable housing through the community – historic evidence indicates that integrating low-income households with a variety of income levels reduces the negative impacts many low-income households typically face and helps to overcome and break the cycle of poverty by removing social barriers o Collectively, new urbanism typically costs between 10 and 20 percent more than traditional development; therefore, the cost premium for this type of development could range between $150.0 to $300.0 million for the entire project. ▪ Agri-Urban Development – The MVSAP calls for integration of agricultural uses with development, the project will have a 40-acre organic farm owned by a Land Coop; the District will fund the infrastructure, such as irrigation and water delivery, berms and wind breaks, interior roads, green houses, pack house facility, and farm stand reducing the cost of acquisition by the Land Coop – The cost of the farm is estimated at $8.0 million. ▪ Multimodal Transportation Improvements – The applicant designed the project with multimodal transportation principals – No estimated cost provided. ▪ Zero Energy Ready – The applicant has agreed to construct all 4,400 homes in the proposed project in compliance with the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready and provide a ZERH rating for every home – The premium associated with this development standard is estimated to add approximately $70.0 million in cost to the project. Other Extraordinary Public Benefits: The following items the developer of the proposed project intends to develop further through research, evaluation, and financial analysis and hopes to include in the development. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 5 • Energy and Water Conservation – The project intends to evaluate several additional opportunities to reduce the energy and water consumption of the project below average consumption levels of similar development types, including: o Residential Battery Storage – The applicant is working with Colorado State University and the City of Fort Collins Utilities to create distributed storage by providing a battery in every home o Non-potable Irrigation – The applicant’s planned non-potable irrigation system will meet 85 percent of all irrigation needs and significantly reduce the use of potable water by the project – estimated cost of $8.0 million o Community-wide In-Home Water Conservation Program – The applicant proposed purchasing water from the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) through a master meter and “manage” individual user water consumption through allocations across the project, this could enable the project to achieve a significant reduction in overall water use • Parks and Recreation Facilities – The applicant is working with the City to deliver several park and recreation facilities in the project that would serve the northeast region of Fort Collins primarily and all residents o Community Recreation Center – The applicant intends to partner with the City to develop and construct a Community Recreation Center in the project o Poudre Library District Facility – The applicant intends to partner with the Poudre Library District to develop a library branch in the project o Community Park – The applicant is working with the City to create an 80 plus acre community park to serve the northeast region of the City • Natural Areas – The applicant is working to deliver natural areas through the project including 150 acres of stormwater land that will be landscaped to create habitat and function as a natural area providing both recreation facilities and Nature in the City • Affordable Housing – The applicant intends to deliver at least 10 percent of the residential units as affordable housing with a mix of rental and ownership products – partnerships are forming with the City (for a Land Bank parcel), Housing Catalyst, and Land Trusts such as Elevations Land Trust, which serves the Front Range market • Housing Variety – The applicant intends to deliver a variety of housing types. (Attachment 2) Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not been able to supply a complete estimate of the value of the above public benefits. However, the wide range of benefits and partnerships will likely generate significant public benefit, that cannot be valued at this time. Policy Comparison A comparison of the proposed use of Metro Districts’ revenues to the Metro District Policy is provided below in Table 1. For reference, two other proposed Metro Districts are provided for comparison – Waterfield and Water’s Edge. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 6 Table 1 Metro District Policy Comparison Montava Waterfield Water's Edge Policy Mill Levy Caps 60 Mills 50 Mills 50 Mills 50 Mills Basic Infrastructure Partially Partially Not Supported To enable public benefit Eminent Domain Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply Prohibited Debt Limitation Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply 100% of Capacity Dissolution Limit Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply 40 years (end user refunding exception) Citizen Control Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply As early as possible Multiple Districts Yes Yes Yes Projected over an extended period Commercial/ Residential Ratio Mixed Use 100% Residential Residential (Phase 1); Mixed Use (Phase 2) N/A Service Plan Review The applicant has used the City’s Model Service Plan as a basis for drafting it’s Service Plan. The following changes have been requested by the applicant: • Financial Plan Alternatives – The applicant has added language to Section IX.A indicating that the attached financial plan is not the only method of implementation of the District’s goals and objectives and that other financial structures may be used, but those other structures must still comply with the Service Plan. • Operating Mill Levy – The applicant has proposed modifying the language of IX.B.3 related to operating mill levy to allow for the Districts’ Boards, when composed of a majority of End Users, to exceed the ten (10) mill cap indicated in the Model Service Plan, while still complying with the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum. • Refunded Debt and Maximum Debt Authorization – The applicant has proposed changes to the language of the Model Service Plan in Section IX.B.7 to indicate that “bonds, loans, notes or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization.” All other changes in the proposed Service Plan are either refinements in the spirit of the Model Service Plan, minor in nature, further changes for clarification or to respond to Council’s requests for clarification on August 21, 2018. A redline version of the Model Service Plan is attached to provide clarity on any changes to the Model Service Plan. (Attachment 4) Performance Assurances The proposed Service Plan prohibits the issuance of any debt or imposition of the Debt Mill Levy or Fees to pay debt unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits area secured for each development phase of the project in a manner that is approved by the City Manager. This requirement can be satisfied by one or both of the following methods, as applicable: • Intergovernmental Agreement - For those Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts, each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City agreeing to provide such Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-fiscal year obligation of the District under TABOR before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 7 an applicable approved development plan for the project, or by securing performance of that obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Manager; and • Approved Development Plan - For those Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the Project within a District’s boundaries, each such Developer must enter into a development agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable approved development plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under the approved development plan for the Project or to secure such obligations with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Manager. Policy Evaluation and Triple Bottom Line Scan The Metro District Policy supports the formation of a metro district regardless of development type when a district delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits should be: (1) aligned with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary public benefits are provided by the metro district or by the entity developing the metro district because metro districts exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The Service Plan for the Montava Project delivers several proposed policy outcomes, as described in the attached matrix. (Attachment 3) Triple Bottom Line – Scan An interdisciplinary staff team met to prepare a Triple Bottom Line Scan (“TBLs”) of the proposed Service Plan. The TBLs included two scenarios: (a) the proposed development compared to no development; and (b) the difference in impact from residential units constructed with the proposed Metro Districts versus those typically constructed in the community. The TBLs summary is available. (Attachment 5) SCENARIO A: The TBLs analysis found that developing the property compared to leaving it fallow will have several potential environmental impacts, including increased consumption of land, water, and energy. However, the analysis did not find a meaningful difference between no development and the proposal for Economic or Social. SCENARIO B: The TBLs analysis found that in many ways the proposed residential construction enabled by the Metro Districts is no different from the residential development currently occurring in the community. However, there were a few notable differences–most significant is the anticipated energy and water savings from the standard of construction proposed and the inclusion of affordable units. Financial Assessment The Metro District Policy requires all applications for a metro district service plan submit a financial plan to the City for review. Economic & Planning Systems prepared an analysis of the Metro Districts’ Financial Plan. (Attachment 6) The analysis found: • EPS found that the market values used in the public revenue estimates to be reasonable. • Montava is an ambitious and large-scale development that will need to capture a significant portion of the market to achieve the proposed buildout assumptions in its Financial Plan. Montava will need to compete with other larger-scale residential and mixed-use developments planned for North Fort Collins. The fact that North Fort Collins is one of the only remaining growth areas of the City should help each of the developments meet their growth targets. • The Developer’s market study includes a grocery anchored community shopping center of approximately 90,000 square feet will be supportable based on projected growth in the trade area. Montava is well located for a retail center to serve the northeast Fort Collins area. However, there are other parcels also Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 8 seeking to build neighborhood or community retail centers and likely insufficient demand to support more than one soon. • The public benefit projects have not been programmed or costed. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the economic value of these benefits against the $179.8 million of infrastructure costs that would be offset by metro district revenues. Basic Infrastructure vs. Public Benefit The Metro District Policy allows a metro districts to fund “basic infrastructure”, that which is typically expected to be provided by a developer (both in type and magnitude), when the inclusion of “basic” infrastructure offsets higher costs associated with extraordinary development outcomes that cannot directly be provided by a metro district (Defined in Exhibit A of the Metro District Policy, e.g., rooftop solar, affordable housing, etc.). The Developer has committed to provide several public benefits and has estimated their cost or value at between $228.0 million and $378.0 million. As stated by EPS, the preliminary nature of the proposed project means that the public benefit projects have not been fully programmed or costed. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the benefits against the requested Maximum Debt Authorization of $203.0 million. Most of the public benefits will be described further in the project’s proposed Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). City Council will be the decision-making body in the PUD review process. Therefore, City Council will have the opportunity to further understand the public benefits to be delivered by approving this Service Plan. In addition, Council will therefore have another opportunity to weigh in on the developer’s commitment to and scale of public benefits at that time. As a result, staff recommends approval of the Service Plan with the full requested Maximum Debt Authorization of $203.0 million, recognizing that additional details will be identified, described, and committed to in the PUD review. Estimated Property Taxes Table 2 shows the property tax estimates by proposed unit type from the existing tax mill and for the proposed Metro Districts. The average increased cost to a home owner is approximately $1,510 annually. This amount will vary over time based on the underlying assessed value as determined by the County Assessor. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 9 Table 2 Property Tax Estimates CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The proposed Service Plan will not have an impact on the City’s financials. The applicant has paid the fees required under the City’s previous metro district policy, which fees are designed to offset the cost of staff and outside consultant review. In addition, the proposed Service Plan includes a requirement that the following notice be included in all debt issued by the Metro Districts: “By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt of the City of Fort Collins” ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Expanded Housing Types (PDF) 3. Policy Evaluation Matrix (PDF) 4. Montava Consolidated Metro District Service Plan Nos 1-7 (redline, showing changes) (PDF) 5. Triple Bottom Line Summary Montava Metro District (PDF) 6. Market and Financial Review (PDF) 7. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) I 8 § MONTAVA METRO DISTRICT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 0 0:::: U) ROJEC �--------��� OCATION ---11 0 C) z ���R�l�C�H�A�R�D�S,..,.;;;�=mw��===;�-�- 2000 1000 0 - - 2000 --- scale 1"=2000' feet N- I w- 1- <( 1-- U) 0:::: w- r------1-z FORT COWNS, CO DA TE: JULY 2018 JOB NO. 1230.0001.00 SHEET 1 OF 1 748 Whalers Way, Suite 200 Fort Colline, Colorado Phone: 970.228.0557 il!, ______________________ rax:_e_01.22&__.0204 _ _ ATTACHMENT 1 MONTAVA Charrette Report Charrette Dates: November 13-20, 2017 Fort Collins, Colorado ATTACHMENT 2 B DRAFT 7/13/2018 MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN This page is intentionally left blank. MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DRAFT 7/13/2018 C PROJECT TEAM CONTENTS Existing Conditions ..................................... 1 Regional Context ..................................................... 2 Local Connections ................................................... 3 Drainage .................................................................... 4 Property Owners ...................................................... 5 Groundwater Depth ................................................. 6 Existing Utilities ..................................................... 7 View To Long’s Peak ............................................... 8 Master Plan ................................................... 9 Charrette Round 1 Preliminary Plans .................. 10 Charrette Round 2 Preliminary Plans ................. 12 Final Charrette Master Plan .................................. 14 Annotated Master Plan .......................................... 15 Neighborhood Structure ......................................... 16 Transect Zones ......................................................... 17 Private Lots ............................................................... 18 Civic and Open Spaces ........................................... 19 Employment and Industrial Districts .................. 20 Affordable Housing Opportunities ....................... 21 Master Plan Details...................................... 23 Master Plan Detail ................................................... 24 Tactical Town Center Incubator ........................... 26 Town Center.............................................................. 27 Mountain Vista Community Gardens .................. 28 Garden Walk ............................................................. 29 Cottage Court ............................................................ 30 Native Hill Farmstand ............................................ 31 Fabricated Home Factory ....................................... 32 Infrastructure ............................................... 33 Regional Transportation Improvements ............. 34 Transportation System Designations.................. 35 Street Type Assignment Plan................................ 36 Street Sections: Arterials ....................................... 37 Street Sections: Collectors ..................................... 40 Street Sections: Local ............................................. 42 Street Sections: Special Conditions ..................... 46 Low Volume Street Precedents ............................. 53 Pedestrian Network ................................................ 54 Parking Facilities .................................................... 55 Bicycle Network: Facilities .................................... 56 Bicycle Network: Cyclist Type .............................. 57 Y-Intersection Studies ........................................... 58 Giddings Intersection Studies .............................. 59 Utilities: Front-Loaded Block ................................ 60 Utilities: Rear-Loaded Block ................................. 61 Stormwater ............................................................... 62 Building Types ............................................. 63 Transect Zones ......................................................... 64 Frontage Types ........................................................ 65 Masterplan Unit Calculations ............................... 66 Building Analysis .................................................... 68 Phase 1 .......................................................... 75 Master Plan ............................................................... 76 Sub-Phases ............................................................... 77 Phase 1A Building Assignment Plan ................... 78 Phase 1A Unit Calculations ................................... 79 Unit Totals ................................................................ 80 D DRAFT 7/13/2018 MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN This page is intentionally left blank. MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DRAFT 7/13/2018 1 DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 2 DRAFT 7/13/2018 QUADRANT SUMMARY PLAN Q1 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q3 Q2 0’ 400’ 800’ 1,200’ 1,600’ 3,200’ T5 | Urban Center Zone T4 | General Urban Zone T3 | Sub-Urban Zone T2.3 | Agricultural Reserve T2.1 | Rural Zone T1 | Natural Zone CS | Civic Space CB | Civic Building SD-H | District [Hamlet] SD-I | District [Industrial] GRAND TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Total A Large Single Family 80 53 8 4 39 0 0 184 B Med. Single Family 132 95 18 23 64 0 0 332 C Small Single Family 200 152 36 94 118 0 0 600 D Micro Single Family 168 135 35 147 112 0 0 597 E Townhouse 85 27 56 323 142 0 0 633 F Small Multi-Family 16 5 15 99 34 0 0 169 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 54390 0 57 HLive/Work 0 0 22140 0 27 J Mixed-Use 0 0 21940 0 25 KShop 0 0 11120 0 14 LEmployment 0 0 0 4 0 0 11 15 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 TOTAL 681 467 178 788 528 0 41 2683 GRAND TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Total A Large Single Family 80 53 8 4 39 0 0 184 B Med. Single Family 132 95 18 23 64 0 0 332 C Small Single Family 200 152 36 94 118 0 0 600 D Micro Single Family 168 135 35 147 112 0 0 597 E Townhouse 85 27 56 323 142 0 0 633 F Small Multi-Family 80 25 75 495 34 0 0 709 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 70 602 9 0 0 681 HLive/Work 0 0 22140 0 27 J Mixed-Use 0 0 56 532 4 0 0 592 TOTAL 745 487 356 2241 526 0 0 4355 GRAND TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Total HLive/Work 0 0 2,400 25,200 4,800 0 0 32,400 J Mixed-Use 0 0 18,200 172,900 36,400 0 0 227,500 KShop 0 0 1,500 16,500 3,000 0 0 21,000 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 22,100 214,600 44,200 0 0 280,900 LEmployment 0 0 0 70,000 0 0 192,500 262,500 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 270,000 270,000 MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS DRAFT 7/13/2018 3 QUADRANT 1 0’ 250’ 500’ 1,000’ T4 | General Urban Zone T3 | Sub-Urban Zone T2.1 | Rural Zone T1 | Natural Zone CS | Civic Space CB | Civic Building Q1 | TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 37 43 0 0 0 80 B Med. Single Family 46 81 5 0 0 132 C Small Single Family 62 108 30 0 0 200 D Micro Single Family 28 98 42 0 0 168 E Townhouse 0 0 85 0 0 85 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 16 0 0 16 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 KShop 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 173 330 178 0 0 681 Q1 | TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 37 43 0 0 0 80 B Med. Single Family 46 81 5 0 0 132 C Small Single Family 62 108 30 0 0 200 D Micro Single Family 28 98 42 0 0 168 E Townhouse 0 0 85 0 0 85 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 80 0 0 80 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 173 330 242 0 0 745 Q1 | TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 JMixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 KShop 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 4 DRAFT 7/13/2018 QUADRANT 2 T4 | General Urban Zone T3 | Sub-Urban Zone T2.3 | Agricultural Reserve T2.1 | Rural Zone T1 | Natural Zone CS | Civic Space CB | Civic Building SD-H | District [Hamlet] 0’ 250’ 500’ 1,000’ Q2 | TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 33 20 0 0 0 53 B Med. Single Family 41 38 1 0 15 95 C Small Single Family 55 51 9 0 37 152 DMicro Single Family 21 42 7 0 65 135 E Townhouse 0 0 27 0 0 27 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 5 0 0 5 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 KShop 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 150 151 49 0 117 467 Q2 | TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 33 20 0 0 0 53 B Med. Single Family 41 38 1 0 15 95 C Small Single Family 55 51 9 0 37 152 DMicro Single Family 21 42 7 0 65 135 E Townhouse 0 0 27 0 0 27 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 25 0 0 25 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 150 151 69 0 117 487 Q2 | TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 KShop 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS DRAFT 7/13/2018 5 QUADRANT 3 T5 | Urban Center Zone T4 | General Urban Zone T3 | Sub-Urban Zone CS | Civic Space CB | Civic Building 0’ 250’ 500’ 1,000’ Q3 | TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 0 8 0 0 0 8 B Med. Single Family 0 15 3 0 0 18 C Small Single Family 0 20 16 0 0 36 D Micro Single Family 0 14 21 0 0 35 E Townhouse 0 0 47 9 0 56 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 960 15 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 5 0 5 HLive/Work 0 0 0 2 0 2 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 2 0 2 KShop 0 0 0 1 0 1 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 57 96 25 0 178 Q3 | TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 0 8 0 0 0 8 B Med. Single Family 0 15 3 0 0 18 C Small Single Family 0 20 16 0 0 36 D Micro Single Family 0 14 21 0 0 35 E Townhouse 0 0 47 9 0 56 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 45 30 0 75 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 70 0 70 HLive/Work 0 0 0 2 0 2 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 56 0 56 TOTAL 0 57 132 167 0 356 Q3 | TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total HLive/Work 0 0 2,400 0 2,400 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 18,200 0 18,200 KShop 0 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 0 22,100 0 22,100 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 6 DRAFT 7/13/2018 QUADRANT 4 T5 | Urban Center Zone T4 | General Urban Zone T3 | Sub-Urban Zone CS | Civic Space CB | Civic Building Q4 | TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 0 4 0 0 0 4 B Med. Single Family 0 8150 0 23 C Small Single Family 0 10 84 0 0 94 DMicro Single Family 0 7 112 28 0 147 E Townhouse 0 0 243 80 0 323 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 46 53 0 99 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 43 0 43 HLive/Work 0 0 0 21 0 21 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 19 0 19 KShop 0 0 0 11 0 11 LEmployment 0 0 0 4 0 4 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 29 500 259 0 788 Q4 | TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 0 4 0 0 0 4 B Med. Single Family 0 8150 0 23 C Small Single Family 0 10 84 0 0 94 DMicro Single Family 0 7 112 28 0 147 E Townhouse 0 0 243 80 0 323 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 230 265 0 495 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 602 0 602 HLive/Work 0 0 0 21 0 21 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 532 0 532 TOTAL 0 29 684 1528 0 2241 Q4 | TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total HLive/Work 0 0 25,200 0 25,200 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 172,900 0 172,900 KShop 0 0 0 16,500 0 16,500 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 0 214,600 0 214,600 LEmployment 0 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0’ 250’ 500’ 1,000’ MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS DRAFT 7/13/2018 7 QUADRANT 5 T5 | Urban Center Zone T4 | General Urban Zone T3 | Sub-Urban Zone T2.1 | Rural Zone T1 | Natural Zone CS | Civic Space Q5 | TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 27 12 0 0 0 39 B Med. Single Family 33 23 8 0 0 64 C Small Single Family 45 30 43 0 0 118 D Micro Single Family 21 28 56 7 0 112 E Townhouse 0 0 125 17 0 142 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 23 11 0 34 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 9 0 9 HLive/Work 0 0 0 4 0 4 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 4 0 4 KShop 0 0 0 2 0 2 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 126 93 255 54 0 528 Q5 | TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 27 12 0 0 0 39 B Med. Single Family 33 23 8 0 0 64 C Small Single Family 45 30 43 0 0 118 D Micro Single Family 21 28 56 7 0 112 E Townhouse 0 0 125 17 0 142 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 23 11 0 34 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 9 0 9 HLive/Work 0 0 0 4 0 4 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 4 0 4 TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 2 Q5 | TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total HLive/Work 0 0 4,800 0 4,800 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 36,400 0 36,400 KShop 0 0 0 3,000 0 3,000 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 0 44,200 0 44,200 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0’ 250’ 500’ 1,000’ MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 8 DRAFT 7/13/2018 QUADRANT 7 CS | Civic Space SD-I | District [Industrial] Q7 | TOTAL BUILDINGS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 B Med. Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Small Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Micro Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Townhouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 KShop 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 11 11 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 30 30 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 41 41 Q7 | TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total A Large Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 B Med. Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Small Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Micro Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Townhouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Small Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 G Med. Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Mixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q7 | TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ID Name T2 T3 T4 T5 SD Total HLive/Work 0 0 0 0 0 JMixed-Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 KShop 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEmployment 0 0 0 0 192,500 192,500 M Industrial 0 0 0 0 270,000 270,000 0’ 250’ 500’ 1,000’ MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DRAFT 7/13/2018 9 BUILDING TYPES MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES 10 DRAFT 7/13/2018 Lot Width 60-100 ft Lot Depth 90-120 ft Average Lot Area 5,400 sf Lot Coverage 40% Average Unit Size 4,300 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 8 du/ac LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE A Kentlands, MD B New Town St. Charles, MO C Norton Commons, KY A B C MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES DRAFT 7/13/2018 11 MEDIUM SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE Lot Width 40-60 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 4,300 sf Lot Coverage 40% Average Unit Size 2,600 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 10 du/ac A New Town St. Charles, MO B Norton Commons, KY C Village of Providence, AL A B C MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES 12 DRAFT 7/13/2018 Lot Width 30-40 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 3,200 sf Lot Coverage 50% Average Unit Size 1,600 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 14 du/ac SMALL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE A B C A Carlton Landing, OK B New Town St. Charles, MO C Norton Commons, KY MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES DRAFT 7/13/2018 13 Lot Width 24-30 ft Lot Depth 60 ft Average Lot Area 1,800 sf Lot Coverage 70% Average Unit Size 1,300 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 19 du/ac MICRO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE (COTTAGE) A B C A Carlton Landing, OK B New Town St. Charles, MO C Bywater, New Orleans, LA MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES 14 DRAFT 7/13/2018 Lot Width 18-24 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 2,000 sf Lot Coverage 50% Average Unit Size 2,000 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 2-3 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 22 du/ac TOWNHOUSE A Cornelius, NC B Habersham, SC C Kentlands, MD A B C MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES DRAFT 7/13/2018 15 Lot Width 66 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 5,900 sf Lot Coverage 50% Average Unit Size 1,000 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 2-3 Dwelling Units 4-6 Avg. Res. Density 37 du/ac SMALL MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING A B C A Habersham, SC B Norton Commons, KY C Rosemary Beach, FL MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES 16 DRAFT 7/13/2018 Lot Width 130 ft Lot Depth 120 ft Average Lot Area 15,600 sf Lot Coverage 40% Average Unit Size 1,000 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 2-3 Avg. Dwelling Units 14 Avg. Res. Density 39 du/ac MEDIUM MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING A Kentlands, MD B Legacy Town Center, TX C New Town St. Charles, MO A B C MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES DRAFT 7/13/2018 17 Lot Width 22-30 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 2,300 sf Lot Coverage 35% Average Unit Size 2,300 sf Retail Area 1,200 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2 Non-Res. Stories 1 Total Stories 3 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 19 du/ac LIVE/WORK BUILDING A B C A Kentlands, MD B New Town St. Charles, MO C Rosemary Beach, FL MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES 18 DRAFT 7/13/2018 Approx. Lot Width 210 ft Approx. Lot Depth 180 ft Average Lot Area 37,800 sf Lot Coverage 35% Average Unit Size 800 sf Retail Area 9,100 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 1 Total Stories 2-3 Avg. Dwelling Units 28 Avg. Res. Density 32 du/ac MIXED-USE BUILDING A Norton Commons, KY B Village at Hendrix, AR C Village of Providence, AL A B C MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES DRAFT 7/13/2018 19 Lot Width 30 ft Lot Depth 120 ft Average Lot Area 3,600 sf Lot Coverage 50% Average Unit Size 0 sf Retail Area 1,500 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 0 Non-Res. Stories 1-2 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 0 Avg. Res. Density 0 du/ac SHOP BUILDING A B C A Kentlands, MD B Legacy Town Center, TX C Mashpee Commons, MA MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN BUILDING TYPES 20 DRAFT 7/13/2018 EMPLOYMENT BUILDING (OFFICE) Approx. Lot Width 210 ft Approx. Lot Depth 180 ft Average Lot Area 37,800 sf Lot Coverage 35% Average Unit Size 0 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 17,500 sf Residential Stories 0 Non-Res. Stories 1-3 Total Stories 1-3 Dwelling Units 0 Avg. Res. Density 0 du/ac A Kentlands, MD B Legacy Town Center, TX C Mashpee Commons, MA A B C MONTAVA | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGN DRAFT 7/13/2018 21 This page is intentionally left blank. Prepared by DPZ CoDesign in partnership with: BHA Design Attachment 3 ‐ Policy Matrix GHG Reduction 100% Zero Energy Ready; Distributed Storage Increase Density Yes, New Urbanist Affordable Housing At least 10% of units; Approx. 440 units Water/Energy Conservation 100% Zero Energy Ready; Distributed Storage; Non‐potable irrigation system; Community‐wide water conservation program Walkability/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly design principles Workforce Housing N/A Multimodal Transportation Design principles applied Availability of Transit N/A Infill/ Redevelopment N/A Enhance Resiliency Cooper Slough Public Space Pocket Parks; Mixed‐Use Open Space; 150 Acres natural area Increase Renewable Capacity Distributed Storage Mixed‐Use Town Center; Housing Variety Off‐Site Contribution to Regional Transportation System Economic Health N/A PUBLIC BENEFIT/POLICY ASSESSMENT MATRIX Environmental Sustainability Critical Public Infrastructure Smart Growth Management Strategic Priorities On‐Site Transportati on system extension; Cooper Slough i Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal City of Fort Collins Title 32 Metropolitan District Model Service Plan This model service plan template should be referenced in conjunction with the City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing Service Plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts. Style Definition: Heading 1: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Auto, Justified, Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: I, II, III, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5", Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines together ATTACHMENT 4 ii Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal Table of Contents CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN FOR MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Restriction ............................... NOS. 1-7 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared by: White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Professional Corporation 2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000 Centennial, CO 80122 Submitted On: August 29, 2018 Approved On: ____________, 2018 iii Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 11 A. Purpose and Intent. ............................................................................................................. 11 B. Need for the Districts. ........................................................................................................ 11 C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan. ................................................... 11 D. City Approvals. .................................................................................................................. 12 II. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 12 III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ................................................................................... 16 IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION .......................................................................................................... 16 A. Project and Planned Development. .................................................................................... 16 B. Public Benefits. .................................................................................................................. 17 C. Assessed Valuation. ........................................................................................................... 18 V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ............................................................ 18 VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................. 18 VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS .............................................................. 19 B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. ................ 19 1. Eminent Domain Restriction .......................................................................................... 19 2. Fee Limitation ................................................................................................................ 19 3. Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................................... 20 4. Fire Protection Restriction ............................................................................................. 20 5. Public Safety Services Restriction ................................................................................. 20 6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction .......................................................... 20 7. Golf Course Construction Restriction ............................................................................ 21 8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction ................................................................ 21 9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation ...................................................................... 21 11. Sub-district Restriction ............................................................................................... 21 12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation ............................................................................... 21 13. Special Assessments ................................................................................................... 22 VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS .............................................. 22 A. Development Standards. .................................................................................................... 23 iv Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal B. Contracting. ........................................................................................................................ 23 C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. ................................................................................... 23 D. Equal Employment and Discrimination. ............................................................................ 23 IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT.......................................................................... 24 A. Financial Plan..................................................................................................................... 24 B. Mill Levies. ........................................................................................................................ 25 1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ........................................................................................ 25 2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .................................................... 25 3. Operating Mill Levy .......................................................................................................... 25 4. Gallagher Adjustments ...................................................................................................... 25 5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ............................................................................................. 25 6. Refunding Debt.................................................................................................................. 26 7. Maximum Debt Authorization ........................................................................................... 26 C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. ............................................. 26 D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. .................................................... 26 E. Disclosure to Purchasers. ................................................................................................... 27 F. External Financial Advisor. ............................................................................................... 27 G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. .......................................................................................... 27 H. Security for Debt. ............................................................................................................... 28 I. TABOR Compliance. ......................................................................................................... 28 J. Districts’ Operating Costs. ................................................................................................. 28 X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 28 A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. .......................................................................................... 29 B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. ......................................................................................... 29 C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. ............................................................... 29 D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. ................................................. 29 E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. ................................................................... 29 F. Regional Mill Levy Term. ................................................................................................. 30 G. Completion of Regional Improvements. ............................................................................ 30 H. City Authority to Require Imposition. ............................................................................... 30 I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. ................................................... 30 J. Gallagher Adjustment. ....................................................................................................... 30 v Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal XI. CITY FEES ........................................................................................................................ 30 XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 30 XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS .......................................................... 31 A. General. .............................................................................................................................. 31 B. Board Meetings. ................................................................................................................. 31 C. Report Requirements. ........................................................................................................ 31 D. Reporting of Significant Events. ........................................................................................ 32 E. Failure to Submit................................................................................................................ 33 XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS .................................................................................. 33 XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 33 XVI. DISSOLUTION ................................................................................................................. 34 XVII. SANCTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 34 XVIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 35 XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ...................................................................................... 35 6 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial Debt Limitation ................................District Boundaries Privately Placed Debt Limitation .................................................................................................. Special Assessments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS .................................................................................... Development Standards ........................................................................................................................ Contracting ............................................................................................................................................ Land Acquisition and Conveyance .......................................................................................................... Equal Employment and Discrimination .................................................................................................. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT ........................................................................................................... Financial Plan ......................................................................................................................................... Mill Levies.............................................................................................................................................. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum .................................................................................................... Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .................................................................... Operating Mill Levy .................................................................................................................................. EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map EXHIBIT E Public Assessed Value and Mill Levies .................................................................................................... Gallagher Adjustments ................................................................................................................ Excessive Mill Levy Pledges .......................................................................................................... Refunding Debt ........................................................................................................................... Maximum Debt Authorization ...................................................................................................... Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount .................................................................... Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification ........................................................................... Disclosure to Purchasers ........................................................................................................................ External Financial Advisor ...................................................................................................................... Disclosure to Debt Purchasers ............................................................................................................... Security for Debt.................................................................................................................................... TABOR Compliance ................................................................................................................................ Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Font: Bold 7 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal District’s Operating Costs .......................................................................................................................... Expenditure of Regional Mill Levy Revenues .............................................................................................. EXHIBIT F Vicinity Map EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Cost Estimates EXHIBIT H Public Improvements Maps EXHIBIT I Financial Statements .............................................................................................. Plan Capital Expenditures ................................................................................................................................ EXHIBIT J Public Benefits EXHIBIT K Disclosure Notice 8 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal II.I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Intent. The DistrictDistricts, which isare intended to be an independent unitunits of local government separate and distinct from the City, isare governed by this Service Plan, the Special District Act and other applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provided for by State law, City Code or this Service Plan, the District'sDistricts' activities are subject to review and approval by the City Council only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act. It is intended that the DistrictDistricts will provide all or part of the Public Improvements for the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the DistrictDistricts. The primary purpose of the DistrictDistricts will be to finance the construction of a portion of these Public Improvements by the issuance of Debt. [Add if Applicable] It is intended that this Service Plan also requires the DistrictDistricts to pay a portion of the cost of the Regional Improvements as part of ensuring that those privately- owned properties to be developed in the District that benefit from the Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs. The District isDistricts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan. It is the intent of the DistrictDistricts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt, except that if the District isDistricts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or maintenance functions, the DistrictDistricts shall continue in existence for the sole purpose of providing such functions and shall retain only the powers necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions. It is intended that the DistrictDistricts shall comply with the provisions of this Service Plan and that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan. B. Need for the DistrictDistricts. There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the immediate vicinity of the DistrictDistricts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and financing of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the DistrictDistricts is therefore necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic manner possible. C. Objective of the City Regarding District'sDistricts' Service Plan. Formatted: Heading 1, Left, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: I, II, III, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single Formatted: No underline Formatted: Heading 2, No bullets or numbering, Widow/Orphan control, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers, Tab stops: Not at 1.06" + 1.06" Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt Formatted: Body Text Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted ... Formatted: Character scale: 100% Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5" Formatted: Character scale: 100% Formatted: Right: 0.08" 9 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the DistrictDistricts to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District.Districts. Except as specifically provided in this Service Plan, all Debt is expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties. A, and at a tax mill levy may not exceedno higher than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees imposed for the payment of Debt shall be due no later than upon the issuance of a building permit unless a majority of the Board which imposes such a Fee is composed of End Users as provided in Section VII.B.2. of this Service Plan. Debt which is issued within these parameters and, as further described in the Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to support the servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt. Relevant Intergovernmental Agreements. D. City Approvals. Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City” or “City Council” approval or consent shall require the City Council’s prior written approval or consent exercised in its sole discretion. Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City Manager” approval or consent shall require the City Manager’s prior written approval or consent exercised in the City Manager’s sole discretion. III.II. DEFINITIONS In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding thea District’s Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. TheA District’s Aggregate Mill Levy does not include any Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that theeach District may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, at a rate not to exceed the limitation set in Section IX.B.1 of this Service Plan. Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service Area, which plan shall include, without limitation, any PUD or development agreement required by the City Code. Board or Boards: means the duly constituted Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of any of the District.Districts, or the boards of directors of all of the Districts, in the aggregate. Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include contracts 10 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property. City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality. City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended. City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. City Manager: means the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes. Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property by thewithin a District for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan, at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B. of this Service Plan. Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property. Developer Obligation: means any agreement executed by the District for the purpose of borrowing funds from any Developer or related party developing or selling land within the Service Area or who is a member of the Board. District: means any one of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7, individually, organized under and governed by this Service Plan. Districts: means the [Name ofMontava Metropolitan District] Nos. 1 through 7, collectively, organized under and governed by this Service Plan. District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the District Boundary Map. End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the DistrictDistricts, who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner or commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs homes or commercial structures is not an End User. External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) is qualified to advise Colorado governmental entities on matters relating to the issuance of securities by Colorado governmental entities including matters such as the pricing, sales and marketing of such securities and the procuring of bond ratings, credit enhancement and insurance in respect of such securities; (2) shall be an underwriter, investment banker, or individual listed as a public finance advisor in the Bond Buyer’s Municipal Market Place or, in the City’s sole discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections; and (3) is not an officer or employee of the DistrictDistricts or an underwriter of the District’sDistricts’ Debt. 11 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and chargerscharges the District isDistricts are authorized to impose and collect under this Service Plan. Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which iswas prepared or approved by an External Financial AdvisorD.A. Davidson & Company in accordance with the requirements of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course. In the event the Financial Plan is not prepared by an External Financial Advisor, the Financial Plan is to be accompanied by a letter of support from an External Financial Advisor. Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be added to the District Boundaries after the DistrictDistricts’ organization, which property is legally described in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference. Initial District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the Initial District Boundary Map. Initial District Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the District isDistricts are permitted to issue as set forth in Section IX.B.8 of this Service Plan. Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which the District’sDistricts’ Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for residential use, which shall include residential properties in a mixed-use developmentsdevelopment. This maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31 of the year this Service Plan is approved by City Council. Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public Improvements, and imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B. of this Service Plan. Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties in the Service Area under an Approved Development Plan. Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned Development. commonly referred to as “Montava”. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Font: Bold 12 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the District isDistricts are authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the DistrictDistricts, except as specifically prohibited or limited in this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements. Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City as provided in Section X of this Service Plan, for funding, in whole or part, by a Regional Mill Levy levied by the District, including, without limitation, the public improvements described in Exhibit “F” attached hereto and incorporated by referenceDistricts. Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill levytax imposed on Taxable Property for the purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this Service Plan. Service Area: means the property within the Initial District Boundaries and the property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries when it is added, in whole or part, to the District Boundaries.. Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Service Plan: means this service plan for the DistrictDistricts approved by the City Council. Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any other applicable law. State: means the State of Colorado. TABOR: means Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the Initial District Boundaries and within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the District Boundaries that will be subject to the ad valorem property taxes imposed by the DistrictDistricts. Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit “G”F and incorporated by reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding it. IV.III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION 13 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal The area of the Initial District Boundaries includes approximately [Insert Number]10 acres and the total area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately [Insert Number]988.5 acres. A legal description and map of the Initial District Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the District’s BoundariesDistricts’ boundaries may expand or contract from time to time as the District undertakesDistricts undertake inclusions or exclusions pursuant to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service Plan. The location of the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as Exhibit GF. V.IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION A. Project and Planned Development. [Describe the nature of the Project and Planned Development, estimated population at build out, timeline for development, estimated assessed value after 5 and 10 years and estimated sales tax revenue. Also, please identify all plans, including but not limited to Citywide Plans, Small Area Plans, and General Development Plans that apply to any portion of the District’s Boundaries or Inclusion Area Boundaries and describe how the Project and Planned Development are consistent with the applicable plans. Please state if the proposed District is to be located within an urban renewal area and if the proposed development is anticipating the use of tax increment financing (TIF). If the District intends to pursue TIF, please provide information on how the TIF financing will interact with the District’s financing and how the necessary Public Improvements will be shared across the two funding sources.] Montava is planned as an extension of the City by providing a town center connected to surrounding development with community commercial and retail services including grocery, full and limited service restaurants, coffee and juice bar, service-oriented businesses like insurance/hair/legal, City Recreation Center, Poudre Library, and many more uses. The transportation plan will tie the Project into the surrounding community including downtown Fort Collins. Any employment that is enabled by the Project will provide opportunity for anyone in the surrounding areas. Montava is a community that will serve all of Fort Collins. In a study commissioned by the Developer of the Project, Bob Gibbs Consulting, projects by 2022 that Montava will have statistical market demand of up to 88,900 square feet and new retail development producing up to $27.5 million in sales. At full build out, total additional demand could grow to 218,000 square feet of new retail development and $70.1 million in gross sales annually. The Project is currently anticipated to contain between 200,000 and 400,000 square feet of office for employment opportunity, and between 70-100 acres of light and green industrial development, and residential development including approximately 2,000 single family homes and 2,400 multi-family units in a wide variety of types, sizes, and configurations. The anticipated population at build-out, which is anticipated to occur over 25+ years, is approximately 11,073 persons. The total assessed value at 5 years (2024) is estimated to be $36,593,000, and the total assessed value at 10 years (2029) is estimated to be $76,202,500. The total City tax paid in 5 years is estimated to be $968,739 and total City tax paid in 10 years is estimated to be $3,643,555. 14 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the DistrictDistricts. Any such approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan. B. Public Benefits. The organization of the Districts is intended to enable the Project to deliver a number of extraordinary direct and indirect public benefits, including: smart growth management through (i) New Urbanist principles, (ii) Argi-Urban development, (iii) Multi-Modal Transportation, and (iv) Zero Energy Ready Homes (collectively, the “Public Benefits”). The purpose of the Districts is to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements necessary to enable Project to develop as planned, including the Public Benefits. A detailed description of the Public Benefits and additional extraordinary benefits of the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit J. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, a District shall not be authorized to issue any Debt, impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees for purpose of repayment of Debt on any property within the Project unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits specifically related to the phase of development or Public Improvements which will be financed with such Debt, Debt Mill Levy or Fees, are secured in a manner approved by the City Manager. To satisfy this prerequisite to the issuance of Debt and to the imposition of taxes for Debt and Fees, delivery of the Public Benefits for each phase of the Project must be secured by one or both of the following methods, as applicable: 1. For any of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts, each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City agreeing to provide such Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-fiscal year obligation of the District under TABOR before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under an applicable Approved Development Plan for the Project or by securing performance of that obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Manager; and 2. For any of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the Project, each such Developer must enter into a development agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable Approved Development Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for the Project or to secure such obligations with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Manager. Assessed [Described the public benefits to be delivered by the Service Plan that comply with the requirements of the City’s Metro District Service Plan Policy. The description must include specific and measurable objectives for the public benefits to be delivered by the Service Plan. Examples of specific and measurable approaches can be found in the City’s Metro District Service Plan Policy.] The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately [Dollar Amount]zero $0.00 for purposes of this Service Plan and, at build out, is expected to be [Dollar Amount].One Hundred Forty Five Million Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single 15 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal Dollars ($145,000,000). These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan. VI.V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA Other than the real property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the DistrictDistricts shall not addinclude any real property tointo the Service AreaDistricts without the City’sCity Council’s prior written approval and in compliance with the Special District Act. Once thea District has issued Debt, it shall not exclude real property from the District’s boundaries without the prior written consent of the City Council. VII.VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE The District’s BoardDistricts’ Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible electorelectors” of the DistrictDistricts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End Users who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the District’s BoardDistricts’ Boards as development ofwithin the Service Area progresses. The DistrictDistricts shall not enter into any agreement by which the End Users’ electoral control of the BoardBoards is removed or diminished. VIII.VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS A. General Grant of Powers. The DistrictDistricts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the District BoundariesService Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions, restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan. If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such powers and authority shall be deemed to be a part hereof and available to beor exercised by the Districts if the City Council first approves the exercise of such powers or authority by the DistrictDistricts. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. The District’sDistricts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise itstheir other powers and authority under the Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan: 16 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal 1. Eminent Domain Restriction The DistrictDistricts shall not exercise itstheir statutory power of eminent domain without first obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the District’sDistricts’ exercise of itstheir eminent domain power is being exercised voluntarily acquiesced to by the DistrictDistricts and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the District’sDistricts’ sovereign powers and shall not negatively affect the District’sDistricts’ status as a political subdivision of the State as conferred by the Special District Act. 2. Fee Limitation All Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, shall be authorized to bemay imposed by any of the DistrictDistricts upon all property within the District Boundariestheir respective boundaries only if such Fees are due and payable no later than upon the issuance of a building permit by the City. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, this Fee limitation shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of the DistrictDistricts, nor shall this Fee limitation apply to a District if a majority of the District’s Board is composed of End Users. 3. Operations and Maintenance The primary purpose of the DistrictDistricts is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop and finance a portion of the Public Improvements. The DistrictDistricts shall dedicate the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners’ association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The District isDistricts are specifically authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity. The DistrictDistricts shall also be specifically authorized to conduct operations and maintenance functions related to the Public Improvements that are not provided by the City or other governmental entity, or to the extent that the District’sDistricts’ proposed operational and maintenance functions included services or activities that exceed those provided by the City or other governmental entity. Additionally, the District shall beDistricts are authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity until such time that the District dissolvesDistricts dissolve. 4. Fire Protection Restriction The District isDistricts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related 17 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal improvements installed as part of the Project’s water system shall not be limited by this subsection. 5. Public Safety Services Restriction The District isDistricts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However, the DistrictDistricts may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. 6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction The DistrictDistricts shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager. This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the DistrictDistricts to the United States Government or the State. 7. Golf Course Construction Restriction Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the DistrictDistricts shall not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. 8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction The District isDistricts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written approval from the City Manager. 9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation The Districts shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption otherwise available to the Districts under the City Code. 9.10. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities The DistrictDistricts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act without the prior written approval of the City Manager. Formatted: Heading 3, Left, No bullets or numbering 18 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal 12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the issuing District shall obtain the certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows: We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of the District’s Service Plan. We [I] certify that (1) the net effective interest rate (calculated as defined in C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax- exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the Debt], including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable considering the financial circumstances of the District. 13. Special Assessments The DistrictDistricts shall not impose special assessments without the prior written approval of the City Council. Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be constructed and/or installed by the DistrictDistricts. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public Improvements may vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit H, excluding any improvements paid for by the Regional Mill Levy necessary to serve the Planned Development, are approximately [Dollar Amount] in [Year] dollars and total approximately [Dollar Amount] in the anticipated year of construction dollars.G, are approximately Three Hundred Twenty-Five Million One Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates are based upon preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit E and include all construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as Exhibit IH. Changes in the Public Improvements or costcosts, which are approved by the City in an Approved Development Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements. The design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will be determined by the DistrictDistricts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned Development and the availability of funding sources. The DistrictDistricts may, in itstheir discretion, phase the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public 19 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal Improvements or defer, delay, reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. The DistrictDistricts shall also be permitted to allocate costs between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in itstheir discretion. The Public Improvements shall be listed using an ownership and maintenance matrix in Exhibit E, either individually or categorically, to identify the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the Public Improvements. The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain operation activities. Relating to these, the DistrictDistricts shall comply with the following requirements: A. Development Standards. The DistrictDistricts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The DistrictDistricts directly, or indirectly through any Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing such work. Unless waived by the City, the DistrictDistricts shall be required, in accordance with the City Code, to post a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for any Public Improvements to be constructed by the DistrictDistricts. Such development security may be released in the City ManagersManager’s discretion when the constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public Improvements, unless such release is prohibited by or in conflict with any City Code provision or State law. Any limitation or requirement concerning the time within which the City must review the District’s proposalDistricts’ proposals or applicationapplications for an Approved Development Plan or other land use approval is hereby waived by the DistrictDistricts. B. Contracting. The DistrictDistricts shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and construction contracting requirements and limitations. C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the DistrictDistricts from the Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for improvements. Land, easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at no cost to the City, shall include an ALTA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites required in the City Code. 20 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal D. Equal Employment and Discrimination. In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the DistrictDistricts shall not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging, promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the DistrictDistricts to accomplish the purposes of this Service Plan. X.IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair, replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, the District shall not be authorized to impose the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy or any other taxes or Fees for any purpose unless and until (a) the District and/or the Developer has obtained an Approved Development Plan that secures the Public Benefits described in Section IV.B of this Service Plan, or (b) the City and District, at the City’s option, have entered into an intergovernmental agreement securing the delivery of the Public Benefits described in Section IV.B Failure to comply with this provision shall constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to all remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan. A. Financial Plan. The District’sDistricts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit JI and incorporated by reference, reflects the District’sDistricts’ anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the DistrictDistricts derived from DistrictDistricts mill levies, Fees imposed by the DistrictDistricts, specific ownership taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this Section IX.The Financial Plan is based on economic, political and industry conditions as they exist presently and reasonable projections and estimates of future conditions. These projections and estimates are not to be interpreted as the only method of implementation of the Districts’ goals and objectives but rather a representation of one feasible alternative. Other financial structures may be used so long they are in compliance with this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this Section IX. Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan anticipates that the District will acquire, construct, and complete all Public Improvements needed to serve the Service Area. 21 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal The Financial Plan demonstrates that the DistrictDistricts will have the financial ability to discharge all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore, the DistrictDistricts will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an opinion as to whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the DistrictDistricts at the time of issuance. B. Mill Levies. It is anticipated that the DistrictDistricts will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy on all property within the Service Area.Districts’ boundaries. In doing so, the following shall apply: 1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, which is fifty (50sixty (60) mills. 2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum. 3. Operating Mill Levy TheEach District may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to fifty (50sixty (60) mills until thethat District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, the District’s Operating Mill Levy shall cannotnot exceed ten (10twenty (20) mills at any point. 4. Gallagher Adjustments In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable Property changes after approval of this Service Plan, the District’sJanuary 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the District’s Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. 5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall 22 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has been approved by a Service Plan Amendment. 6. Refunding Debt The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding purposes if: (1) a majority of the Districtissuing District’s Board is composed of End Users and have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding will result in a net present value savings. 7. Maximum Debt Authorization The District anticipates Districts anticipate approximately [Dollar Amount]Three Hundred Twenty Five Million One Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in project costs in [Year]2018 dollars as set forth in Exhibit EG, and anticipate issuing approximately [Dollar Amount]Two Hundred Three Million Dollars ($203,000,000) in Debt to pay such costs as set forth in Exhibit JI, which Debt issuance amount shall be the amount of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The DistrictDistricts collectively shall not issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The DistrictBonds, loans, notes or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization. Intergovernmental Capital Pledge Agreements among two or more of the Districts pledging the collection and payment of property taxes or Fees by one District for the repayment of Debt by a separate issuing District shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts must seek prior resolution approval by the City Council to issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization to pay the actual costs of the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit EG plus inflation, contingencies and other unforeseen expenses associated with such Public Improvements. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment so long as increases are reasonably related to the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit E and any Approved Development Plan. C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued. The maximum interest rate on any Debt is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities. D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. The DistrictDistricts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount payedpaid by the 23 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal DistrictDistricts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The DistrictDistricts shall provide this written opinion to the City before issuing any Debt based on it. E. Disclosure to Purchasers. In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings units in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other taxing governmental entities, the property taxes imposed under the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy and possibly the Regional Mill Levy, the DistrictDistricts shall not be authorized to issue any Debt under this Service Plan until there is included in the Developer’s Approved Development Plan provisions that require the following: 1. That the Developer, and its successors and assigns, shall prepare and submit to the City Manager for his approval a disclosure notice in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit K (the “Disclosure Notice”); 2. That when the Disclosure Notice is approved by the City Manager, the Developer shall record the Disclosure Notice in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders Office; and 3. That the approved Disclosure Notice shall be provided by the Developer, and by its successors and assigns, to each potential End User purchaser of a residential lot or dwelling unit in the Service Area before that purchaser enters into a written agreement for the purchase and sale of that residential lot or dwelling unit. An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the Districtissuing Districts to provide a written opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the Districtissuing Districts once the total amount of Debt issued by the DistrictDistricts exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial Advisor is to provide advice to the District Boardissuing Districts’ Boards regarding the proposed terms and whether Debt conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the DistrictDistricts, the projected tax base increase in the DistrictDistricts, the security offered and other considerations as may be identified by the Advisor. TheEach issuing District shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction, or other appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the External Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the Advisor’s opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature, couponing, credit spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details of the proposed Debt serve the best interest of the DistrictDistricts. Debt shall not be undertaken by the DistrictDistricts if found to be unreasonable by the External Financial Advisor. G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. District Any Debt of the Districts shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form: 24 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal “By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt of the City of Fort Collins” Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property within the Service Area. H. Security for Debt. The DistrictDistricts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the District’sDistricts’ obligations; nor shall anything in the Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in the event of default by the DistrictDistricts in the payment of any such obligationobligations. I. TABOR Compliance. The DistrictDistricts shall comply with the provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”).In the discretion of the BoardDistricts’ Boards, the DistrictDistricts may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain under the control of the District’s Board. District’s J. Districts’ Operating Costs. The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial operations, are anticipated to be [Dollar Amount],$200,000, which will be eligible for reimbursement from Debt proceeds. In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated and maintained. The first year’s operating budget is estimated to be [Dollar Amount].$100,000. Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy, subject to the limitations as set forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as from other revenues legally available to the DistrictDistricts. XI.X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 25 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal The DistrictDistricts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the DistrictDistricts shall impose a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the DistrictDistricts’ boundaries under the following terms: A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. The DistrictDistricts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five (5) mills as part of the District’sDistricts’ initial TABOR election. The DistrictDistricts shall also seek from the electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City obligating the DistrictDistricts to pay as a multiple- fiscal year obligation the proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining such voter- approval of this intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the DistrictDistricts issuing any Debt under this Service Plan. B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. The DistrictDistricts shall each impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills within one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the DistrictDistricts requesting the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed. C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to property owners within the Service Area. The City shall make a good faith effort to require that planned developments that (i) are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional Improvement also impose a Regional MillyMill Levy, to the extent possible. D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public improvements that the DistrictDistricts would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re-design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law. E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as follows: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement If the City and the DistrictDistricts have executed an intergovernmental agreement concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement; 26 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal 2. No Intergovernmental Agreement If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the DistrictDistricts and the City, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating, redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users of the DistrictDistricts as prioritized and determined by the City. F. Regional Mill Levy Term. The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed. G. Completion of Regional Improvements. All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year Regional Mill Levy term. H. City Authority to Require Imposition. The City’s authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy shall expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the DistrictDistricts first imposes a Debt Mill Levy. I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the Aggregate Mill Levy. J. Gallagher Adjustment. In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of approval of this Service PlanJanuary 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy may be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the DistrictDistricts’ Boards in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. XII.XI. CITY FEES The DistrictDistricts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code. XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS 27 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii) are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or governmental powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 943(b)(6). XIV.XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS A. General. The District Each of the Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no later than September 1st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the DistrictDistricts has been issued. These documents They Districts may file a consolidated annual report. The annual report may be made available to the public on the City’s website. B. Board Meetings. The District’s board Each of directorsthe Districts’ Boards shall hold at least one public board meeting in three of the four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after the District’sDistricts’ creation. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in accordance with the requirements of the Special District Act and other applicable State Law. This meeting requirement shall not apply until there is at least one End User of property within the District. Also, this requirement shall no longer apply when a majority of the board of directors on the District’s Board are End Users. C. Report Requirements. Unless waived in writing by the City Manager, each of the DistrictDistricts’ annual report must include the following in the Annual Report: 1. Narrative A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service Plan for the report year. 2. Financial Statements Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and expenditures) for the report year. 28 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal 3. Capital Expenditures Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements in the report year. 4. Financial Obligations Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year. 5. Board Contact Information The names and contact information of the current board membersdirectors on the District’s Board, any District manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the report. The District’s current office address, phone number, email address and any website address shall also be listed in the report. 6. Other Information Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably necessary by the City Manager. D. Reporting of Significant Events. The annual report of each District shall also include information as to any of the following that occurred during the report year: 1. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District BoundariesDistrict’s boundaries as of December 31 of the report year. 2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year. 3. Copies of the District’s rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to the District’s rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year. 4. A summary of any litigation which involves the District’s Public Improvements as of December 31 of the report year. 29 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal 5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report year. 6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument. 7. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period. E. Failure to Submit. In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the DistrictDistrict’s Board at its last known address. The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan, at the discretion of the City Manager. XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances. The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the DistrictDistricts to provide required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs consistent with the then-current Approved Development Plans for the Project. Any action of one or more of the DistrictDistricts, which is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided in in Section XV belowof this Service Plan or any other applicable provision of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service Plan. All other departures from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether such departures are a material modification under this Service Plan or the Special District Act. XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action of the DistrictDistricts that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless otherwise provided in this Service Plan. Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service Plan Amendment include, without limitation: 30 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal 1. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to the taxpayers of any of the District; Districts; 2. Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan; 3. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a facility required by the Service Plan; and 4. Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this Service Plan. Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation changes in quantities of improvements, facilities or equipment; immaterial cost differences; and actions expressly authorized in this Service Plan. XVII.XVI. DISSOLUTION Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which theany District was created have been accomplished, the District shall file a petition in district court for dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other financial obligations as required pursuant to the Special District Act and any other applicable State law. XVIII.XVII. SANCTIONS Should any of the DistrictDistricts undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council approval or consent or City Manager approval or consent, as required in this Service Plan, or that constitutes a material modification to this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under the Special Districts Act, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate: 1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act; 2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District’s development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services; 3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement under which the District is in default; or 4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including seeking injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law. 31 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal XVIII. CONCLUSION It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area to be served by the DistrictDistricts; 2. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the DistrictDistricts is inadequate for present and projected needs; 3. The District isDistricts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service Area; and 4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. XX.XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The District agreesDistricts agree to incorporate the City Council’s resolution approving this Service Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented to the District Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado. 32 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries 33 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map 34 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries 35 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map 36 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT E Public Improvements Description of Public Improvements a. Streets. On-site and off-site streets, curbs, gutters, culverts, other drainage facilities, sidewalks, bridges, parking facilities, paving, lighting, grading, utility relocation necessitated by public rights-of-way, monumentation, signage, snow removal, streetscapes and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. b. Water. On-site and off-site potable and non-potable water supply improvements, including water rights, storage facilities, transmission and distribution lines, pumping stations, fire hydrants, meters, facilities, equipment, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. c. Storm and Sanitary Sewer. On-site and Off-site storm and sanitary sewer collection and transmission improvements, including storage facilities, collection mains and laterals, pumping stations, lift stations, transmission lines, storm sewer, flood and surface drainage facilities and systems, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. d. Parks and Recreation. On-site and off-site public park, open space and recreation facilities or services, including parks, bike paths, pedestrian ways, public plazas and courtyards, water features, signage, monumentation, art, gardens, farm facilities, orchards, picnic areas, recreation facilities, playground equipment/areas, park shelters, public area landscaping and weed control, streetscaping, outdoor lighting of all types, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. 37 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT F Vicinity Map 38 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Cost Estimates 39 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT H Public Improvements Maps 40 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT I Financial Plan Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Bold Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Bold 41 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT J “PUBLIC BENEFITS” 1. New Urbanism: New Urbanism is an urban design movement which promotes environmentally friendly habits by creating walkable neighborhoods containing a wide range of housing and job types. Montava has been designed by the industry leaders in New Urbanist design, DPZ, and it influences every aspect of the Project. The Project may implement New Urbanism by one or more of the following: a. Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric; b. Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed; c. Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood; d. Creating walkable streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations; e. Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets; f. Integrating market rate and affordable housing. 2. Agri-Urban Development: Montava will have an approximately 40 acre organic farm. The farm will serve the entire community of the City with the highest quality, wide variety of locally grown organic vegetables. While there may be other uses on the farm in the long term, the primary business model is intended to be organic vegetables. 3. Zero Energy Ready Homes: Montava’s residential development will be built to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home “ZERH” standard. 4. Multi-Modal Transportation: Montava will include multi-modal transportation design and integration with the entire community of the City from the beginning, which may include bicycle paths to future transit integration. Activating the community trail system and integrating that into the overall City trail network, is an area of direct impact the Montava will make. The Districts may build and maintain the trail system that is internal to Montava and can also be used to facilitate the construction of “off site” trail systems to integrate Montava with the rest of the City. OTHER EXTRAORDINARY BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT* Energy and Water Conservation: x The developer is working with the City of Fort Collins Utility to create a community that is founded on renewable energy use, energy conservation, with community wide impact. An example we are working on could include every home having a battery which is charged at night by the city’s wind turbine power generation, and used during the day by the Utility for solar smoothing. x 85% of the irrigation needs will be met by non-potable water sources, and the community overall will be managed from a “we conserve resources” perspective though the Districts. 42 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal x The Developer is exploring management by the a community wide “in home” water conservation effort by acting as the middle man between ELCO and individual home owners. By purchasing water with a master meter, the District can remove the excessive water dedication needed to account for individual variation in use. By implementing a community wide water conservation approach managed by the Districts, the developer expects to achieve a substantial savings in overall water use. Community Park: Integration is at the heart of what Montava represents. The developer is working with the City’s Parks department to create an 80+ acre community park that will be an activity and enjoyment hub for all NE Fort Collins. The intention is to activate this park from the beginning of Montava’s life, not 20+ years in the future as the current plan dictates. This allows an entire generation of City residents to enjoy it. The Districts are anticipated to fund portions of this effort directly, and it’s use for traditional infrastructure offers flexibility for additional developer investment and flexible terms that can make this early development possible. Natural Areas: The developer is working to provide natural areas in serval ways, including the naturalization of over 150 acres of storm water land that will become a beautiful natural amenity to the entire area, while protecting all of east Fort Collins from floods. The developer will also be incorporating, where possible, nature in the City throughout Montava. Both of these efforts can be activated and supported if necessary by Districts. Affordable Housing: Affordable housing is a national crisis, and is not new to the City real estate reality. Montava has been designed from the very beginning to incorporate substantial affordable housing options including both innovative single site multi family, and creative distributed ownership model affordable housing. The developer intend for at least 10% of the housing units in Montava to be affordable, distributed between both owned and “for rent” units. The developer intends to partner with the City, Housing Catalyst, Land Trusts like Elevations, and many other partners to attack this challenging problem. Every aspect of this costs additional money beyond traditional development costs. In this area, the Districts have a strong but indirect benefit. Having the Districts to help offset traditional infrastructure costs enables more flexible and aggressive approaches to integrating affordable housing into the community by enabling land sales below market, the offset of infrastructure costs in lot costs, and other areas. Housing Variety: Housing variety is a critical element of building a Traditional Neighborhood Design community. DPZ specializes in designing communities with tremendous, and beautiful, integration of diverse and wide ranging housing options. When done intentionally, and with the best expertise which we have hired, creates an incredible living environment that is unlike 99% of what has been built in the past 50+ years in our country. This costs more money in all phases of planning, designing, and execution of development. The Districts have an indirect impact on our ability to close the gap on these additional costs. Innovation: Innovation is taking many forms in Montava. The developer is working with CSU in multiple areas including agriculture, waste water, energy and affordable housing. The developer is working with global leader Siemens in partnership with the City of Fort Collins Utility to create an incredibly innovative integration of technology around both energy and daily life. The 43 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal developer intends to make the Fort Collins Broadband a foundational technology for every home owner from day-one. Employment: Employment opportunities exist where highly educated and innovative people live, and community services and amenities are offered to those employees. The developer is working to create a place where employers will want to open businesses, and their innovative employees will want to live. The developer has made room in the appropriate areas of its Master Plan for this type of use. Community Services: The town center is intended to include things like community retail and commercial opportunities. The developer intends to partner with the City to develop a Community Rec Center, and with the Poudre Library District to develop a library for the next generation. The Districts may be used to help fund various aspects of public facilities like the Rec Center. *(Not considered “Public Benefits” for the purpose of this Service Plan) Description of New Urbanist Principles Which May Be Implemented in Montava 1. Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric. Montava intends to include a wide range of uses and housing, specifically on display in the town center and early development phases. The town center includes stand-alone commercial, incubator commercial, office, entertainment, mixed-use, multi-family, and high intensity single family. It is located along the southern edge of Montava to knit together both development in Montava and future development to the south. The town center is in a traditional town center format, with walkable streets that extend beyond the center, into the surrounding neighborhood fabric. While accessible by car, the town center is located at the convergence of major and minor streets, trails, and open space amenities. Within the core of the town center, more dense development is planned, including non-residential and multi-family residential at relatively high densities. Moving out from the town center towards the adjacent neighborhoods, the density steps down slightly and a variety of different housing types mix together. To achieve this intensity and connected network of streets and trails, careful planning, engineering, and financing are necessary to implement dense infrastructure, a tight grid of streets, on and off-street trails, and stormwater, including existing and future ditches. 2. Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed. Montava is intended to be phased as a series of neighborhoods, varying in character and intensity. While the site is intended to appear to be a continual grid, natural topographic features, trails, streets, and stormwater facilities divide it into sub-areas that will develop their own identity within the whole of Montava. Each neighborhood is intended to be designed to include a mix of housing types and intensities. Neighborhoods may be located to either address a series of amenities along its edge, such as parks, schools, and gardens, or a strong amenity within its boundaries. Each 44 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal neighborhood is intended to be analyzed on the scale of a 5-minute walk (more or less), within which smaller amenities and playgrounds are planned, near to housing. The town center, the farm, and the City park may serve as major amenities, drawing people together with the majority able to reach one or more easily by foot. Achieving this structure requires a connected grid of streets that move from one neighborhood to another, and the ability to vary density and use within each. Connections between and through neighborhoods are necessary for the success of Montava’s major amenities, including the town center. 3. Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood. Each neighborhood is intended to include at least 3 zones of intensity, which is a key New Urban metric for achieving diverse and walkable communities. While some neighborhoods overall may be lower in intensity and others higher, within each neighborhood housing types are intended to be mixed. This mixing allows for an overall higher intensity of housing by ensuring distribution of higher intensity housing which can be problematic when concentrated. In addition to density through mixed-use, Montava seeks to achieve density through smaller lots and houses, arranged in courts and clusters. These are mixed into each neighborhood, adding intensity while integrating into neighborhood character. A key to achieving intensity and a mix of housing is having a consistent system of alleys. Higher intensity housing does not work without a system of alleys, and the alley allows housing of different types and scales to coexist by removing the eyesores of parking and service from streets. 4. Creating walkable and bike able streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations. Walkability relies upon well designed streets, systems of trails, and distributed destinations to encourage walking and biking rather than driving. Creating a walkable place isn’t only about travel mode either, it is about connecting neighbors with each other and promoting public health by encouraging residents to spend time out in the community. Walkability begins with a pattern of development that moves cars from the front to the back, behind homes and businesses usually accessed by alleys. The design of the street space makes pedestrians feel comfortable by reducing the amount of street space given to cars and providing quality street trees, lighting scaled and designed for pedestrians, and comfortable sidewalks. Sidewalks must also be scaled to the intensity of the area. In lower intensity areas, two people should be able to walk abreast. In higher intensity areas, room for 3 or 4 people next to each other is necessary. On-street parking is another key feature of walkability, shielding pedestrians from moving cars. Reducing pavement width and car speed makes most streets bike able, but key routes are also configured as bike boulevards and others with dedicated facilities. Combined with walkable streets, the regional trail network is connected into the core of Montava, and additional trails are provided through the center and along the edge. Destinations in Montava are distributed to encourage pedestrian and bike movement throughout the site, and to encourage neighborliness. The farm anchors the NE corner, along with farm-related retail and services in a small neighborhood center. The high school and middle school anchor the SE corner. The western edge is anchored by the City park and the elementary school. And the core of Montava is anchored by the town center, central square, and a grand avenue connecting the farm and town center to each other. 5. Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets. 45 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal A connected grid of streets is a core new urbanist principle. Montava has a strong street grid that creates walkable blocks and distributes traffic throughout the site. The street network makes key connections to existing neighbors and along significant arterials. Within Montava the street network is primarily made up of low-speed, pedestrian-centric streets, meant to distribute and slow traffic while creating a significant amount of capacity. The grid integrates Timberline, Mountain Vista, Giddings, Country Club, and Richard’s Lake, with numerous connections in- between. 6. Integrating market rate and affordable housing. Along with mixing housing types, Montava strives to include affordable housing throughout. Housing affordability is achieved within the market and through subsidy. On the market side, the range of housing will include large, expensive housing as well as small, inexpensive housing, and everything in-between. Market rate housing is made more affordable by limiting the lot size and building size, and arranging housing in courts and on pedestrian ways that reduce infrastructure cost per unit. Subsidized housing is also integrated into Montava, using a strategy of dispersion rather than concentration. Historically areas of concentrated poverty create self-perpetuating cycles and are targets for community pushback. Distributing subsidized housing throughout Montava reduces any associated negative impacts while it also helps break the cycle of poverty by removing social barriers. Both market-based and subsidized housing benefit from reduced or deferred infrastructure costs, lowering the base cost of improved property. 46 Revised: August 21, 2018 Formatted: Normal EXHIBIT K Disclosure Notice Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: Bold Montava Metro District Nos. 1-7 The proposed Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 will support the construction of a multi-phase long-term development located in the northeast portino of Fort Collins (the “Project”). The Project is located in the area covered by the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (MVSAP). The project anticipates delivery on several key principals of the MVSAP while also providing a community that follows New Urbanist principles to promote environmentally friendly habits, walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types. The Triple Bottom Line Scan prepared for the Project evaluated two different baseline scenarios: (a) no development; and (b) traditional code based residential development without mixed-use. The following summary includes the highlights from the two scenarios (identified in bold/italics) and contrasts the results of each. Positive Consumes less land for the same number of homes - new urbanist approach to lot layout (Scenario B) Supports Climate Action Plan - all homes Zero Energy Ready (Both) Improves outdoor air quality – energy efficiency (Scenario B) Indirect education of environmental stewardship (Both) Negative Consumes additional land currently in a natural state (Scenario A) Increases construction waste (Scenario A) Decreases outdoor air quality – increased traffic (Scenario A) Positive Supports future infrastructure needs by constructing a street grid, new arterials, and regional stormwater improvements (Both) Supports talent development in the community by providing additional housing opportunity – some affordable (10 percent) (Both) Negative Impacts the cost of living by increasing property taxes for home owners, offset by energy efficiency, housing variety and price point, and affordable housing (Neutral) (Both) All other conditions are neutral (Both) Positive Agri-urban and organic farm will increase access to healthy food (Both) Town Center, Recreation Center, Community park, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, and walkability will impact social interactions (Both) Project will provide up to 440 affordable units dispersed throughout the project – supporting the City’s affordable housing goals and enhancing the inclusivity of the community (Both) Negative All other conditions are neutral (Both) Montava Metro District Nos. 1-7 SCENARIO A SCENARIO B City Council adopted a revised policy for Reviewing Metropolitan District Service Plans (the “Metro District Policy”) on August 21, 2018. The Metro District Policy allows for a wide range of projects to apply for the use of Metro Districts to offset either extraordinary costs or basic costs that enable the delivery of extraordinary development outcomes. These extraordinary outcomes cover a range of possibilities generally grouped into four categories: Environmental Sustainability, Critical Infrastructure, Smart Growth Management, and Strategic Priorities. The TBLs included two scenarios: (a) the proposed development compared to no development; and (b) the difference in impact from residential units constructed with the proposed Metro District versus those typically constructed in the community. SCENARIO A: The TBLs analysis found that developing the property compared to leaving it fallow will have several potential environmental impacts, including increased consumption of land, water, and energy. However, the analysis did not find a meaningful difference between no development and the proposal for Economic or Social. SCENARIO B: The TBLs analysis found that in many ways the proposed residential construction enabled by a Metro District is no different from the residential development currently occurring in the community. However, there were a few notable differences – most significant is the anticipated energy and water savings from the standard of construction proposed and the inclusion of affordable units. 183080-Montava Metro District Review-08-17-2018.docx M EMORANDUM To: Josh Birks and Patrick Rowe Economic Health & Redevelopment, City of Fort Collins From: Dan Guimond and Elliot Kilham, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Montava Metro District Market and Financial Review EPS #183080 Date: August 17, 2018 This memorandum summarizes Economic & Planning System’s (EPS) evaluation of the Financial Plan section of the Consolidated Service Plan (Service Plan) for the Montava Metropolitan Service District (District). The City is required to approve the Service Plan for a Title 32 Metropolitan District (metro district) prior to it being submitted for a vote by the electorate of the district. EPS’s third-party analysis helps to inform the City’s review and approval decision—specifically as it relates to the Financial Plan. The evaluation includes a review of the market and financial assumptions underlying the application as well as the general feasibility of the District’s Financial Plan, including public revenue and bond proceed forecasts. The evaluation also reviews the proposal against the proposed metro district policy requirement for extraordinary public benefits. Development Program Montava is a proposed 860-acre new urban planned community in North Fort Collins located east of Interstate 25 and north of Richard’s Lake Road as shown in Figure 1 at the end of this section. The proposed project is a mixed-used development with residential and commercial uses. Commercial uses include community serving retail and other service-oriented businesses supporting the residential development as well as significant office and industrial development. The project is projected to buildout over the next 25+ years; at which time, it is forecasted to include 4,465 housing units and 855,000 square feet of commercial space. ATTACHMENT 6 Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 2 The Developer provided a preliminary development program to D.A. Davidson, the District’s bond underwriter, as shown in Table 1. This preliminary program includes: • 2,455 single family homes with a projected market value of $450,000. • 2,010 multifamily units with a projected market value of $225,000. • 210,000 square feet of retail with a projected market value of $150 per square foot. • 200,000 square feet of office with a projected market value of $200 per square foot. • 445,000 square feet of industrial with a projected market value of $100 per square foot. Table 1 Proposed Montava Development Program and Market Values The Developer plans to begin platting the development so that the first finished lot is completed in 2019. The proposed buildout or vertical construction of Montava is estimated to take place over a 25-year period from period from 2020 to 2044, as shown in Table 2. • Single Family: The first single family residential houses are projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2034, an average rate of 164 homes per year. • Multifamily: The first multifamily units are projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2042, an average rate of 87 units per year. • Retail: The first retail space is projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2042, an average rate of 9,130 square feet per year. • Office: The first office space is projected to be completed in 2023 with buildout finishing in 2044, an average rate of 9,091 square feet per year. • Industrial: The first industrial space is projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2038, an average rate of 23,421 square feet per year. The preliminary program is used as inputs into D.A. Davidson’s estimate of bond proceeds and draft bond series offerings. As the basis for the Financial Plan, EPS focused its market assessment on these inputs. However, the program is subject to change. In addition, the Developer has also announced an intention to build a “new urbanist” development with a variety Description Amount % Total Market Value 2018 $ Residential Units $/Unit Single Family 2,455 55% $450,000 Multifamily 2,010 45% $225,000 Total/Weighted Avg. 4,465 100% $348,712 Commercial Sq. Ft. $/Sq. Ft. Retail 210,000 25% $150 Office 200,000 23% $200 Industrial 445,000 52% $100 Total/Weighted Avg. 855,000 100% $136 Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 3 of residential housing products of various sizes and densities, not just single family and multifamily units. The Developer has undertaken preliminary design work to begin to define this more detailed program and has hired DPZ CoDesign, a noted new urbanist design firm, to lead these efforts. These preliminary efforts, however, have yet to define price ranges for the various housing products, making a market evaluation premature at this time. Table 2 Proposed Montava Buildout Residential (Units) Commercial (Sq. Ft.) Description Single Family Multifamily Total Retail Office Industrial Total Year 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 160 50 210 20,000 0 30,000 50,000 2021 175 150 325 20,000 0 40,000 60,000 2022 170 125 295 20,000 0 20,000 40,000 2023 180 100 280 25,000 15,000 0 40,000 2024 180 0 180 25,000 0 30,000 55,000 2025 180 180 360 0 25,000 0 25,000 2026 180 90 270 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000 2027 160 90 250 10,000 10,000 0 20,000 2028 175 180 355 10,000 0 40,000 50,000 2029 175 80 255 0 10,000 0 10,000 2030 160 100 260 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000 2031 130 0 130 10,000 0 0 10,000 2032 140 0 140 20,000 0 50,000 70,000 2033 150 100 250 0 30,000 50,000 80,000 2034 140 100 240 10,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 2035 0 120 120 0 0 0 0 2036 0 110 110 0 0 50,000 50,000 2037 0 100 100 10,000 0 0 10,000 2038 0 110 110 0 10,000 25,000 35,000 2039 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 2040 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 2041 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 2042 0 75 75 10,000 20,000 0 30,000 2043 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 2044 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 2045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary Total 2,455 2,010 4,465 210,000 200,000 445,000 855,000 Average [1] 164 87 194 9,130 9,091 23,421 34,200 [1] Average betw een the first and last year of build-out Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 4 Figure 1 Montava Metro District Vicinity Map Diagram Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 5 Metro District Proposal Summary The Service Plan proposes to form seven separate metro districts. The districts will have the ability to impose an aggregate mill levy of 60 mills, which includes a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy. The Operating Mill Levy can equal up to 60 mills until the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, at which point the Operating Mill Levy cannot exceed 20 mills. While District levies are capped at 60 mills, the Service Plan allows for adjustments to the mill levies in the event that there are changes to the method of calculating assessed value or any other changes impacting the revenue generating capabilities of the District. In such cases, the District may increase or decrease mill levies to ensure that actual tax revenues generated are not diminished. This ability helps to further guarantee future revenue streams and reduce the risk for the bond holders. The Debt Mill Levy is expected to be used to finance public improvements listed in Exhibit E of the Service Plan. The Developer’s engineering consultant estimates that the total cost of the public improvements will be approximately $325 million, and the Developer anticipates issuing approximately $203 million in debt to fund a portion of these public improvement costs. Metro District Policy The City is currently considering updating its policy originally adopted in 2008 for reviewing proposed metro district service plans. The new policy update proposes to remove previous limitations for metro district to be 90 percent commercial and not to be used to fund “basic infrastructure improvements normally required from new development”. In their place, the policy requires that developers deliver “extraordinary public benefits” to the City. In addition, the new policy would increase the recommended maximum mill levy for both debt service and O&M to 50 mills—up from 40 mills in the 2008 resolution. The proposed Montava maximum aggregate mill levy of 60 mills exceeds this recommended maximum mill levy. While the District may not end up using the full mill levy, the Service Plan gives the District the flexibility to do so. Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 6 Market Assessment This section reviews market values and buildout/absorption assumptions used to estimate the potential public financing revenues and debt capacity of the project, as described in the proposed Financial Plan. The section is organized into the four different land use types proposed for the development: residential, retail, office, and industrial. Residential Market Values To help determine their reasonableness, EPS compared the market value assumptions used the in the Financial Plan’s debt capacity estimates with recent sales in Fort Collins. In addition, EPS compared Montava’s proposed market values with other comparable developments in the Fort Collins area. Recent Sales The Developer’s proposed market values fall near the average of recent sales in the Fort Collins market. The Fort Collins Board of Realtors’ (FCBR) reports that the average price of a single family home sold in Fort Collins in 2018 was $457,002. CoStar, a real estate database service, reports that the average sales price for an apartment unit in the past year was $210,725, as shown in Table 3. • Single Family: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $450,000 or 1.5 percent less than the average of recent sales. As a result, the proposed values are in line with market averages and are appropriately conservative for use in public revenue estimates. • Multifamily: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $225,000 for multifamily units. This is 6.8 percent greater than the average apartment unit price of $210,725, as reported in CoStar. This average, however, includes both new and existing apartment buildings. It should be expected that a new construction unit would trade at a premium to the market average. Table 3 Proposed Montava Market Values Compared to Average Prices in Fort Collin’s Market Description Single Family Multifamily Service Plan $450,000 $225,000 Average Price $457,002 $210,725 Difference -$7,002 $14,275 % Difference -1.5% 6.8% Source: DA Davidson; FCBR; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 7 North Fort Collins Projects This section compares Montava to other recent for-sale residential projects in the North Fort Collins market area. This comparison reveals that Montava’s price points for single family homes largely overlap with the price ranges proposed in recent residential projects, as shown Table 4 and Figure 2. At a proposed 4,465 units, however, Montava would be one of the largest residential development projects in Fort Collins. Table 4 For-Sale Residential Projects in the North Fort Collins Market Figure 2 Price Range in Comparable Residential Projects and Montava Project Status Project Start Product Units Price Compable Projects Single-Family $350,000-$650,000 Townhomes $300,000-$430,000 Condos $230,000-$450,000 Single-Family 18 $540,000-$570,000 Townhomes 37 $327,500-$360,000 Timbervine Under Construction 2017 Single-Family 146 $346,000-$390,000 East Ridge Approved --- Single-Family 568 $300,000-$400,000 Waterfield Single-Family 2,455 $450,000 Multifamily 2,010 $225,000 *Total housing units for all product types Source: Zillow; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Proposed Development Proposed 2018 Old Town North Third Phase 2007 450-500* Revive Under Construction 2015 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Old Town North Revive Timbervine East Ridge Waterfield Price Range Source: Zillow; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Montava Single Family Home Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 8 Absorption EPS compared the planned buildout to forecasted future demand for specific housing products. We calculated future housing demand as part of our work on the update to Fort Collins City Plan, organizing these estimates into low density (single family homes), middle density (2- to 20-unit buildings), and high density (20 or more unit buildings) housing products. (More detail on EPS’s housing demand estimate is shown in Table 6 on the following page.) Based on this comparison, EPS calculated an implied capture rate by Montava to gain a perspective on the size and reasonableness of the proposed building plan. From 2016 to 2040, EPS estimates that there will be a demand of 570 low density units and 701 middle and high density units per year, for a total annual average of 1,270 units. In comparison, the Developer proposes to buildout Montava at an average of 164 low density, single family homes per year from 2020 to 2034 and 87 multifamily units from 2020 to 2042. EPS assumed that Montava’s multifamily units will be a mix of middle and high density housing types. This development schedule implies a capture rate of 29 percent for low density products and 12 percent for middle and high density units. In total, the proposed schedule implies a 20 percent capture rate. A capture rate of 20 percent is a significant portion of the residential development market in the Fort Collins market, and may be relatively aggressive. Overall, it is a large and ambitious development, and its success depends on its ability to attract a large segment of the market. The fact that the development seems to be targeting the middle of the market in terms of prices and has a variety of housing types should help it attract a wider market demand segment. Ultimately, Montava’s ability to meet this implied capture rate will depend on size of the pipeline and its competitive position against other projects. There are currently of number of proposed large-scale residential developments in North Fort Collins, including Waterfield and Water’s Edge, that will compete with Montava. However, North Fort Collins is one of the few remaining growth area of the city, meaning that Montava may have less competition from other areas of the city. Table 5 Montava Development Implied Residential Capture Rate Waterfield Fort Collins Waterfield Description Average Annual Avg [3] Capture % [4] 2016-2040 Low Density [1] 164 570 29% Middle + High Density [2] 87 701 12% Subtotal 251 1,270 20% [1] Based on definitions from the CityPlan estimate, low density housing includes Single Family homes [2] Based on definitions from the CityPlan estimate, middle and high density includes all Multifamily units. [3] Annual average from CityPlan housing demand forecast completed by EPS. [4] Capture % = Waterfield Average / Fort Collins Average. Source: Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 9 Table 6 Fort Collins City Plan Future Housing Demand Estimates Retail Development Market Values For its public revenue estimates, the Montava Financial Plan assumed that the retail space in the development will have a market value of $150 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS compared it to the historical five-year average sales price per square foot of retail space in the Fort Collins market and to the capitalized value of retail space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average retail rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort Collins market. Both benchmarks are greater than the assumption used in the Montava’s Financial Plan, as shown in Table 7. The five-year average sales price in Fort Collins is $214 per square foot or 43 percent greater than the Montava assumption. The capitalized value of retail space over the last five years was approximately $241 per square foot or 60 percent greater than the Montava assumption. As a result of these comparison, EPS concludes that the market value used in the Financial Plan is relatively conservative. Using a higher retail market value more closely aligned with market averages in the Financial Plan would increase the estimated public revenues from the development and may allow the Developer to lower the proposed maximum mill levy, which currently exceeds the City’s recommended maximums. Table 7 Retail Market Value Comparison 2016 2040 Description Amount % Total Amount % Total Total Ann. # Ann. % Low Density 42,254 66% 55,926 59% 13,672 570 1.2% Middle Density 14,891 23% 20,998 22% 6,108 254 1.4% High Density 6,590 10% 17,296 18% 10,706 446 4.1% Total 63,735 100% 94,220 100% 30,485 1,270 1.6% Source: Economic & Planning Systems 2016-2040 Sales Price Capitalized Montava Description Per Sq. Ft. [1] Value [2] Assumption Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.) $214.00 $240.73 $150.00 % Difference [2] -43% -60% 0% [1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft. [3] Percent difference from the market value assumption. Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems [2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate or $15.89 / 6.60%. Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 10 Retail Demand and Buildout The Developer commissioned a market study by Gibbs Planning Group to determine the amount of supportable retail. Based on an estimated retail trade area roughly equating to a six-mile radius surrounding the proposed Montava development as well as estimates of population growth (including buildout of Montava) and of average household income within the trade area, Gibbs Planning Group calculated total potential supportable retail space to equal 88,900 square feet. This total demand is broken out into different retail types, as shown in Table 8. The demand essentially represents a grocery-anchored community retail center, with a variety of full and limited service restaurants, bars and breweries, and other ancillary retail surrounding the anchor. EPS reviewed the market report commissioned by the Developer and concludes that the North Fort Collins market is a significant growth area of the city and will likely be able to support a community retail center sometime in the future. However, in the Financial Plan, the Developer proposes to build retail space simultaneous with the residential portion of the development, as shown in Figure 3. More realistically, the retail development would not occur until the trade area has reached certain household thresholds that would be supportive of an anchor grocery store. This grocery store would then spur ancillary retail space in the development. In addition, Montava will likely face competition for this retail demand. For example, the proposed Water’s Edge metro district is planning to build 70,000 square feet of retail. Based on the Developer’s market study, there isn’t enough retail demand to support two community centers in the near future. Table 8 Montava Potential Supportable Retail Description Amount % Total Sq. Ft. Grocery Stores 25,000 28% Full-Service Retaurants 17,000 19% Limited-Service Eating Places 16,600 19% Parmacy 5,300 6% Apparel & Shoe Stoes 5,000 6% Mics. Store Retailers 3,700 4% General Merchandise Stores 3,400 4% Bars, Breweries & Pubs 2,900 3% Specialty Food Stores 2,900 3% Home Furnishing Stores 1,800 2% Special Food Services 1,700 2% Office Supplies & Gift Stores 1,400 2% Electronics & Applicances Stores 1,300 1% Jewelry Stores 900 1% Total 88,900 100% Source: Gibbs Planning Group, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 11 The Montava proposal includes a total of 210,000 square feet of retail space over the 2020 to 2045 timeframe. This equates to 48 square feet per household within Montava. With the exception of 30,000 square feet, the development of this additional commercial space is tied to residential development over the 2020 to 2034 timeframe. Figure 3 Proposed Retail and Residential Development 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 CumulativeHouseholds Retail Space Cumulative Retail Space Households Source: Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 12 Office Development Market Values The Montava Financial Plan assumed that the office space in the development will have a market value of $200 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS compared it to the five-year average sales price per square foot of office space in Fort Collins and to the capitalized value of office space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average office rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort Collins market. The Montava assumption is 22 percent greater than the average sales price, which was $157 per square foot, and 2 percent greater than the capitalized value at $195 per square foot, as shown in Table 9. Given the fact that it will be new space but in a relatively new market area, EPS finds the Montava assumption to be appropriately conservative. Table 9 Office Market Value Comparison Absorption EPS benchmarked Montava’s proposed office development against historic office development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in Table 10. From 2023 to 2044, the Developer proposes to build an average of 9,091 square feet of office per year. Over the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, the city delivered an average 134,430 square feet of office space per year. As a result, the Montava proposal implies a capture rate of 7 percent per year relative to the historical average. EPS finds that a 7 percent capture rate is a reasonable target for the development. However, we note that the office market in North Fort Collins is immature. In the short to medium term, much of the office will be residential-service based uses. Similar to retail, these uses may not develop until a certain threshold population is reached. Table 10 Montava Development Implied Office Capture Rate Sales Price Capitalized Montava Description Per Sq. Ft. [1] Value [2] Assumption Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.) $157.00 $195.55 $200.00 % Difference [2] 22% 2% 0% [1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft. [3] Percent difference from the market value assumption. Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems [2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate or $14.67 / 7.50%. Montava Fort Collins Montava Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture % 2023-2044 2000-2017 Office 9,091 134,430 7% [1] Capture % = Montava Average / Fort Collins Average. Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 13 Industrial Development Market Values The Montava Financial Plan assumed that the industrial space in the development will have a market value of $100 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS compared it to the five-year average sales price per square foot of office space in Fort Collins to the capitalized value of industrial space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average industrial rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort Collins market. The Montava assumption is 15 percent greater than the average sales price, which was $85 per square foot, and 12 percent less than the capitalized value at $112 per square foot, as shown in Table 11. EPS finds that the market value assumption is realistic and appropriately conservative. Table 11 Industrial Market Value Comparison Absorption EPS benchmarked Montava’s proposed industrial development against historic industrial development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in Table 12. From 2022 to 2038, the Developer proposes to build an average of 23,421 square feet of industrial space per year. Over the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, the city delivered an average 141,826 square feet of industrial space per year. As a result, the Montava proposal implies a capture rate of 17 percent per year relative to the historical average. EPS finds that a 17 percent capture rate is a relatively aggressive, though not unachievable target for the development. Table 12 Montava Development Implied Office Capture Rate Sales Price Capitalized Montava Description Per Sq. Ft. [1] Value [2] Assumption Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.) $85.00 $111.82 $100.00 % Difference [2] 15% -12% 0% [1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft. [3] Percent difference from the market value assumption. Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems [2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate or $8.50 / 7.60%. Montava Fort Collins Montava Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture % 2022-2038 2000-2017 Industrial/Flex 23,421 141,826 17% [1] Capture % = Montava Average / Fort Collins Average. Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 14 Financial Analysis The Service Plan proposes to use the stream of revenues raised from mill levies to issue debt in the form of bonds. These bond proceeds will be used to reimburse the Developer for public improvement costs. This section reviews proposed public improvement costs and the revenue and debt estimates described in the metro district Service Plan. Public Improvement Costs TST Inc. Consulting Engineers provided the public improvement cost estimates used in the Service Plan. Overall, public improvements associated with the development are estimated to be approximately $325 million, as shown in Table 13. Many of these costs are basic infrastructure improvements typically required for development, including earthwork, streets, sanitary sewer, water, and storm water infrastructure improvements. It is important to note that these cost estimates are preliminary and will likely change as the development plan evolves and becomes more detailed. The Developer proposes to issue debt generating approximately $180 million in project proceeds, as shown in Table 13. This debt would cover 55 percent of the total public improvements costs. The Developer would need to cover the remaining $145 million or 45 percent of total costs with other funds. Table 13 Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs Description Amount % Total Public Improvement Costs Administrative & Misc. $11,000,000 3% Earthwork $21,499,312 7% Streets (Onsite & Offsite) $105,255,350 32% Sanitary Sewer (Onsite & Offsite) $15,732,500 5% Water (Onsite & Offsite) $11,081,500 3% Nonpotable Water (Onsite & Offsite) $13,814,500 4% Storm Water (Onsite & Offsite) $10,286,290 3% Recreation Facilities $8,000,000 2% Landscaping, Trails, Open Space, and Farm Facilities $44,215,395 14% Construction Costs $240,884,847 74% Contingency (20% of Construction Costs) $48,176,969 15% Engineering/Survey/C.M. (15% ofConstruction Costs) $36,132,727 11% Total $325,194,543 100% Metro District Impact Project Funds $179,778,140 55% Other Funds $145,416,403 45% Total $325,194,543 100% Source: TST, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 15 Revenue Estimates Proposed Mill Levies and Facility Fee The proposed maximum District Mill Levy of 60 mills is relatively common and within the distribution of similar metro districts in Colorado. The 60 mills would be added onto to the existing property tax levy of 90.828 mills and increase the property tax burden by 66 percent. For the residential portion of the property, the maximum District Mill Levy would result in an average of $1,500 per year or $125 per month of additional cost to the tenant. For the commercial portion of the property, the maximum District Mill Levy would result in an average of $2.36 per square feet of additional property tax cost per year, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 Metro District Mill Levies Market Assessed Property Tax Description Value Value Existing District Total 90.828 mills 60.000 mills 150.828 mills Residential (Units) 7.20% Single Family $450,000 $32,400 $2,943 $1,944 $4,887 Multifamily $225,000 $16,200 $1,471 $972 $2,443 Weighted Average $348,712 $25,107 $2,280 $1,506 $3,787 % Total 60% 40% 100% Commercial ($/SF) 29.00% Retail $150 $44 $3.95 $2.61 $6.56 Office $200 $58 $5.27 $3.48 $8.75 Industrial $100 $29 $2.63 $1.74 $4.37 Weighted Average $136 $39 $3.57 $2.36 $5.93 % Total 60% 40% 0% Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 16 Public Revenue Forecasts and Bond Proceeds D.A. Davidson, the District’s financial advisor, estimates that the metro district will generate a total of approximately $462 million in revenues from Debt Mill Levy collections, as shown in Table 15. The market value and absorption assumptions described in the Market Assessment section of this memorandum are the main drivers of these revenue estimates. A reduction in the proposed market values for the residential and commercial development and/or extended buildout and absorption schedule will reduce the total bond proceeds. The underwriting process and bond structure includes reserve funds and capitalized interest mitigate difference between forecasted and actual values relating to market values, buildout schedule, and other variables. These public revenues will be used to generate approximately $179 million that can be used to reimburse the Developer for infrastructure expenditures related to the public improvements. D.A. Davidson anticipates issuing the debt in six separate bond series, as shown in Table 16. Table 15 Montava Metro District Public Revenue and Project Funds Table 16 Estimated Bond Proceeds by Series Description Amount % Total Public Revenues Bond Proceeds $202,747,000 44% Interest $259,538,171 56% Total $462,285,171 100% Project Funds Bond Proceeds $202,747,000 Reserve Fund -$15,010,550 Cost of Issuance -$7,958,310 Total $179,778,140 Source: D.A. Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Bond Series Description 2023A 2027A 2031A 2035A 2039A 2044A 2019B Total Bond Proceeds $40,425,000 $42,075,000 $40,995,000 $38,300,000 $14,635,000 $11,160,000 $15,157,000 $202,747,000 Reserve Fund -$3,235,008 -$3,367,208 -$3,280,808 -$3,065,133 -$1,168,742 -$893,650 $0 -$15,010,550 Cost of Issuance -$1,617,000 -$1,683,000 -$1,639,800 -$1,532,000 -$585,400 -$446,400 -$454,710 -$7,958,310 Project Fund $35,572,992 $37,024,792 $36,074,392 $33,702,867 $12,880,858 $9,819,950 $14,702,290 $179,778,140 Source: D.A. Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 17 Public Benefits The City’s proposed policy for reviewing metro districts supports the formation of a district “where it will deliver extraordinary public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City”. The proposed policy goes on to define four focus areas or types of benefits that meet this policy as follows: • Environmental Sustainability Outcomes – defined as public improvements that provide environmental benefits including reduction in greenhouse gases, water or energy conservation, community resiliency against natural disasters, renewable energy capacity, and/or other environmental outcomes. • Critical Public Infrastructure – public improvements that address significant infrastructure needs previously identified by the City. • Smart Growth Management – public improvements that facilitate design that increases development density, enhances walkability, increases the availability of transit or multimodal facilities, and/or encourages mixed use development patterns. • Strategic Priorities – public improvements that address City priorities including affordable housing, infill or redevelopment, and economic health improvements (e.g., job growth business retention, or construction of a missing economic resource). Exhibit K of the Service Plan describes the proposed public benefits of the Montava project. The Developer is able to provide these public benefits in part due to the District bonds that reimburse the developer for public improvement costs. More specifically, by reimbursing basic infrastructure investments typically associated with development with District bond proceeds, the Developer is able to invest more money into public benefits the City views as priorities. These include environmental sustainability, critical public infrastructure, smart growth management, and strategic priorities like affordable housing. As described in the Service Plan, the primary public benefit of Montava is its new urbanist design, which follows many smart growth management principles, including: denser development; mixed-use town centers; walkable communities; a variety of housing options; and multi-modal transportation options. The development also plans to include energy and water conservation initiatives. For example, the Developer has indicated that every home will meet the U.S. Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home Standard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense Guidelines. The Developer also intends for at least 10 percent of the total housing units to be affordable, in addition to a number of other benefits described in Exhibit K. The Developer has not provided any information on the costs/value of different proposed public benefits, and how the District Bond helps to offset these cost by funding basic infrastructure. Overall, the Service Plan does not guarantee the delivery of public benefits. Public benefits will have to be vetted and guaranteed through additional approval steps for the metro district, including approval of the development plan. Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 18 Summary and Conclusions • The proposed Montava maximum aggregate mill levy of 60 mills exceeds the maximum mill levy of 40 mills in the City’s current metro district policy and the maximum mill levy of 50 mills in the proposed new policy. • EPS generally finds that the market values used in the public revenue estimates to be reasonable. These assumptions align with market averages, given a new construction premium, and the residential market values are comparable to other recent developments in North Fort Collins. • Montava is an ambitious and large-scale development that will need to capture a significant portion of the market to achieve the proposed buildout assumptions in its Financial Plan. In particular, Montava will need to compete with other larger-scale residential and mixed-use developments planned for North Fort Collins. The fact that North Fort Collins is one of the only remaining growth areas of the city should help each of the developments meet their growth targets. • The Developer’s market study includes a grocery anchored community shopping center of approximately 90,000 square feet will be supportable based on projected growth in the trade area. Montava is well located for a retail center to serve the northeast Fort Collins area. However, there are other parcels also seeking to build neighborhood or community retail centers and likely insufficient demand to support more than one in the near future. • As outlined in Exhibit K Public Benefits, the Service Plan proposes an extensive list of public improvement that potentially meet the City’s proposed metro district criteria for extraordinary public benefits including: denser development; mixed-use town centers; walkable communities; a variety of housing options; and multi-modal transportation options. The development also plans to include energy and water conservation initiatives. The Developer also intends for at least 10 percent of the total housing units to be affordable, in addition to a number of other benefits described in Exhibit K. • However these potential projects have not been programmed or costed. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the economic value of these benefits against the $179.8 million of infrastructure costs that would be offset by metro district revenues. 1 Montava Metro District Service Plan Josh Birks 9-4-18 ATTACHMENT 7 Project Description 25+ Year Multi Phase Master Planned Project Increased density 4,400 Residential Units 10% affordable 2 Policy Comparison – Key Provisions 3 Montava Waterfield Water's Edge Policy Mill Levy Caps 60 Mills 50 Mills 50 Mills 50 Mills Basic Infrastructure Partially Partially Not Supported To enable public benefit Eminent Domain Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply Prohibited Debt Limitation Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply 100% of Capacity Dissolution Limit Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply 40 years (end user refunding exception) Citizen Control Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply As early as possible Multiple Districts Yes Yes Yes Projected over an extended period Commercial/ Residential Ratio Mixed Use 100% Residential Residential (Phase 1); Mixed Use (Phase 2) N/A Public Improvements Improvement Description Estimated Cost Earthwork Primarily grading $21.5 Million Streets Local streets, alleys, boulevards, arterials, off- site $105.3 Million Water Main infrastructure $11.1 Million Sanitary Sewer Main infrastructure $15.7 Million Non-potable Irrigation Irrigation System $13.8 Million Storm Sewer Main infrastructure $10.2 Million Recreation Facilities Parks, open space, rec. facilities $8.0 Million Landscaping, Trails, Farm Trail system, 40-acre farm $44.2 Million Administrative Engineering & Managing $47.0 Million Contingency 20% of total cost $48.0 Million Total $325.2 Million 4 Environmental Economic Social High confidence Negative Impact Positive Impact Low Confidence 5 Triple Bottom Line Scan – Scenario A Takeaways: • Some negative environmental impacts • Energy & Water efficiency • Generally neutral to positive Economic & Social Impacts • Property Tax Cost = Negative Economic Environmental Social High confidence Negative Impact Positive Impact Low Confidence 6 Triple Bottom Line Scan – Scenario B Takeaways: • Density = less land • Energy & Water efficiency • Generally neutral to positive Economic & Social Impacts • Property Tax Cost = Negative Varies by Scenario 7 Triple Bottom Line Scan Results Environmental Economic Social (+) Constructs a range of infrastructure (+) Supports workforce through added housing (-) Increases property tax (+) Agri-urban and organic farm (+) Walkability and Social Interactions (+) Affordable Housing (-) Consumes additional land (-) Increases construction waste (-) Decreases outdoor air quality 8 Triple Bottom Line Scan - Environmental Scenario A (+) Consumes less land per unit (+) Energy efficiency improves outdoor air quality (+) Support Climate Action Plan – Zero Energy Ready (+) Indirect education of environmental stewardship Scenario B Both Policy Evaluation & Public Benefits Environmental Sustainability GHG Reduction Water/Energy Conservation Multimodal Transportation Enhance Resiliency Increase Renewable Capacity Critical Public Infrastructure Existing significant infrastructure challenges On-site Off-site Smart Growth Management Increase density Walkability/Pedestrian Infrastructure Availability of Transit Public Spaces Mixed-Use Strategic Priorities Affordable Housing Workforce Housing Infill/Redevelopment Economic Health Outcomes 9 Estimated Net Public Benefits 10 $228 to $378 Million Public Benefits $203 Million Debt Cap $25+ Million Net Benefit Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the resolution 11 -1- RESOLUTION 2018-084 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN FOR MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7 WHEREAS, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) authorizes the formation of various kinds of governmental entities to finance and operate public services and infrastructure, including metropolitan districts; and WHEREAS, in July 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-069 in which it approved a policy setting forth various guidelines, requirements and criteria concerning the City’s review and approval of service plans for metropolitan districts (the “2008 Policy”); and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 2018-079 approving the “City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing Service Plans for Metropolitan Districts” (the “2018 Policy”) setting forth guidelines, requirements and criteria applicable to the City’s consideration a metropolitan district service plan to replace and supersede those in the 2008 Policy, except for the fee and notice requirements when they have been satisfied by a service plan applicant under the 2008 Policy before the adoption of the 2018 Policy; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Special District Act”), HF2M, INC. (the “Petitioner”) has submitted to the City a Consolidated Service Plan (the “Service Plan”) for the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (each a “District” and collectively the “Districts”); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Service Plan is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Districts will be organized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and operation and maintenance of all or a portion of certain public improvements, as more specifically described in the Service Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the 2008 Policy and Resolution 2018-079, the Petitioner has complied with the requirement for mailed notice of the City Council’s September 4, 2018, public hearing on the Service Plan (the “Public Hearing”), as evidenced by the “Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Public Hearing” attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has also provided notice of the Public Hearing by publication as evidence by the “Affidavit of Publication” attached as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Service Plan and considered the testimony and evidence presented at the Public Hearing; and -2- WHEREAS, the Special District Act requires that any service plan submitted to the district court for the creation of a metropolitan district must first be approved by resolution of the governing body of the municipality within which the proposed district lies; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve the Service Plan for the Districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby determines that the City’s notification requirements have been complied with regarding the Public Hearing on the Service Plan. Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds that the Service Plan contains, or sufficiently provides for, the items described in Section 32-1-202(2), C.R.S., and that: (a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed Districts; (b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed Districts is inadequate for present and projected needs; (c) The proposed Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within their proposed boundaries; and (d) The area to be included within the proposed Districts has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Section 4. The City Council’s findings are based solely upon the evidence in the Service Plan as presented at the Public Hearing and the City has not conducted any independent investigation of the evidence. The City makes no guarantee as to the financial viability of the Districts or the achievability of the desired results. Section 5. That the City Council hereby approves the Service Plan. Section 6. That the City Council’s approval of the Service Plan is not a waiver or a limitation upon any power that the City Council is legally permitted to exercise regarding the property within the Districts. -3- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of September, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk i CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN FOR MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared by: White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Professional Corporation 2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000 Centennial, CO 80122 Submitted On: August 29, 2018 Approved On: ____________, 2018 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 6 A. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................................ 6 B. Need for the Districts........................................................................................................... 6 C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan...................................................... 6 D. City Approvals. .................................................................................................................... 7 II. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 7 III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION................................................................................... 10 IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION .......................................................................................................... 11 A. Project and Planned Development. .................................................................................... 11 B. Public Benefits. .................................................................................................................. 11 C. Assessed Valuation. ...........................................................................................................12 V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA............................................................ 12 VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE............................................................................................. 13 VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS.............................................................. 13 B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations................. 13 1. Eminent Domain Restriction.......................................................................................... 13 2. Fee Limitation ................................................................................................................14 3. Operations and Maintenance.......................................................................................... 14 4. Fire Protection Restriction ............................................................................................. 14 5. Public Safety Services Restriction ................................................................................. 14 6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction.......................................................... 14 7. Golf Course Construction Restriction............................................................................ 15 8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction................................................................ 15 9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation...................................................................... 15 11. Sub-district Restriction............................................................................................... 15 12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation ............................................................................... 15 13. Special Assessments................................................................................................... 16 VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS.............................................. 16 A. Development Standards. .................................................................................................... 17 iii B. Contracting......................................................................................................................... 17 C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. ................................................................................... 17 D. Equal Employment and Discrimination............................................................................. 17 IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT.......................................................................... 18 A. Financial Plan..................................................................................................................... 18 B. Mill Levies. ........................................................................................................................ 18 1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum........................................................................................ 18 2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies.................................................... 18 3. Operating Mill Levy..........................................................................................................19 4. Gallagher Adjustments ...................................................................................................... 19 5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges............................................................................................. 19 6. Refunding Debt.................................................................................................................. 19 7. Maximum Debt Authorization........................................................................................... 19 C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. ............................................. 20 D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. .................................................... 20 E. Disclosure to Purchasers. ................................................................................................... 20 F. External Financial Advisor. ............................................................................................... 21 G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. .......................................................................................... 21 H. Security for Debt................................................................................................................ 21 I. TABOR Compliance.......................................................................................................... 21 J. Districts’ Operating Costs.................................................................................................. 22 X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 22 A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. .......................................................................................... 22 B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition.......................................................................................... 22 C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements................................................................ 22 D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan.................................................. 23 E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues.................................................................... 23 F. Regional Mill Levy Term. ................................................................................................. 23 G. Completion of Regional Improvements............................................................................. 23 H. City Authority to Require Imposition................................................................................ 23 I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. ................................................... 24 J. Gallagher Adjustment. ....................................................................................................... 24 iv XI. CITY FEES........................................................................................................................ 24 XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS...................................................................................... 24 XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS .......................................................... 24 A. General............................................................................................................................... 24 B. Board Meetings.................................................................................................................. 25 C. Report Requirements. ........................................................................................................ 25 D. Reporting of Significant Events......................................................................................... 26 E. Failure to Submit................................................................................................................ 26 XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS .................................................................................. 26 XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 27 XVI. DISSOLUTION.................................................................................................................27 XVII. SANCTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 28 XVIII. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 28 XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ...................................................................................... 28 5 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map EXHIBIT E Public Improvements EXHIBIT F Vicinity Map EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Cost Estimates EXHIBIT H Public Improvements Maps EXHIBIT I Financial Plan EXHIBIT J Public Benefits EXHIBIT K Disclosure Notice 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Intent. The Districts, which are intended to be independent units of local government separate and distinct from the City, are governed by this Service Plan, the Special District Act and other applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provided for by State law, City Code or this Service Plan, the Districts' activities are subject to review and approval by the City Council only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act. It is intended that the Districts will provide all or part of the Public Improvements for the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the Districts. The primary purpose of the Districts will be to finance the construction of a portion of these Public Improvements by the issuance of Debt. It is intended that this Service Plan also requires the Districts to pay a portion of the cost of the Regional Improvements as part of ensuring that those privately-owned properties to be developed in the District that benefit from the Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs. The Districts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan. It is the intent of the Districts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt, except that if the Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or maintenance functions, the Districts shall continue in existence for the sole purpose of providing such functions and shall retain only the powers necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions. It is intended that the Districts shall comply the provisions of this Service Plan and that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan. B. Need for the Districts. There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the immediate vicinity of the Districts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and financing of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the Districts is therefore necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic manner possible. C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan. 7 The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the Districts to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts. Except as specifically provided in this Service Plan, all Debt is expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties, and at a tax mill levy no higher than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees imposed for the payment of Debt shall be due no later than upon the issuance of a building permit unless a majority of the Board which imposes such a Fee is composed of End Users as provided in Section VII.B.2 of this Service Plan. Debt which is issued within these parameters and, as further described in the Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to support the servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt. D. City Approvals. Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City” or “City Council” approval or consent shall require the City Council’s prior written approval or consent exercised in its sole discretion. Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City Manager” approval or consent shall require the City Manager’s prior written approval or consent exercised in the City Manager’s sole discretion. II. DEFINITIONS In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding a District’s Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. A District’s Aggregate Mill Levy does not include any Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that each District may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, at a rate not to exceed the limitation set in Section IX.B.1 of this Service Plan. Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service Area, which plan shall include, without limitation, any PUD or development agreement required by the City Code. Board or Boards: means the duly constituted board of directors of any of the Districts, or the boards of directors of all of the Districts, in the aggregate. Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not 8 include contracts through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property. City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality. City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended. City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. City Manager: means the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes. Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property within a District for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan, at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of this Service Plan. Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property. District: means any one of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7, individually, organized under and governed by this Service Plan. Districts: means the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7, collectively, organized under and governed by this Service Plan. End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the Districts, who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner or commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs homes or commercial structures is not an End User. External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) is qualified to advise Colorado governmental entities on matters relating to the issuance of securities by Colorado governmental entities including matters such as the pricing, sales and marketing of such securities and the procuring of bond ratings, credit enhancement and insurance in respect of such securities; (2) shall be an underwriter, investment banker, or individual listed as a public finance advisor in the Bond Buyer’s Municipal Market Place or, in the City’s sole discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections; and (3) is not an officer or employee of the Districts or an underwriter of the Districts’ Debt. Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges the Districts are authorized to impose and collect under this Service Plan. Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan 9 which was prepared by D.A. Davidson & Company in accordance with the requirements of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinarycourse. Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be added to the District Boundaries after the Districts’ organization, which property is legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. Initial District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the Initial District Boundary Map. Initial District Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the Districts are permitted to issue as set forth in Section IX.B.8 of this Service Plan. Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which the Districts’ Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for residential use, which shall include residential properties in a mixed-use development. This maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31 of the year this Service Plan is approved by City Council. Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public Improvements, and imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of this Service Plan. Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties in the Service Area under an Approved Development Plan. Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned Development commonly referred to as “Montava”. Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the Districts are authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the Districts, except as specifically limited in this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements. 10 Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City as provided in Section X of this Service Plan, for funding, in whole or part, by a Regional Mill Levy levied by the Districts. Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill tax imposed on Taxable Property for the purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this Service Plan. Service Area: means the property within the Initial District Boundaries and the property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries. Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council. Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any other applicable law. State: means the State of Colorado. TABOR: means Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the Initial District Boundaries and within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the District Boundaries that will subject to the ad valorem taxes imposed by the Districts. Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated by reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding it. III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION The area of the Initial District Boundaries includes approximately 10 acres and the total area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately 988.5 acres. A legal description and map of the Initial District Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the Districts’ boundaries may expand or contract from time to time as the Districts undertake inclusions or exclusions pursuant to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service Plan. The location of the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as Exhibit F. 11 IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION A. Project and Planned Development. The Districts are intended to enable the Montava Vision and Master Plan (the “Master Plan”). The Master Plan is the result of an unprecedented collaborative effort including: public meetings, a weeklong public charrette, and extensive City Staff involvement. The foundation of the 860-acre development is the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (the MVSAP), City Plan, and the Climate Action Plan. Montava will be a unique community - the name itself is a combination of “Mon” for our ever-present mountains and the Ute Indian word “tava,” which means “sun”. “Mountain Sun” is both a reflection of the history and beauty of our area, and a commitment to renewable energy which is a foundational principal of the Project. Montava is planned as an extension of the City by providing a town center connected to surrounding development with community commercial and retail services including grocery, full and limited service restaurants, coffee and juice bar, service-oriented businesses like insurance/hair/legal, City Recreation Center, Poudre Library, and many more uses. The transportation plan will tie the Project into the surrounding community including downtown Fort Collins. Any employment that is enabled by the Project will provide opportunity for anyone in the surrounding areas. Montava is a community that will serve all of Fort Collins. In a study commissioned by the Developer of the Project, Bob Gibbs Consulting, projects by 2022 that Montava will have statistical market demand of up to 88,900 square feet and new retail development producing up to $27.5 million in sales. At full build out, total additional demand could grow to 218,000 square feet of new retail development and $70.1 million in gross sales annually. The Project is currently anticipated to contain between 200,000 and 400,000 square feet of office for employment opportunity, and between 70-100 acres of light and green industrial development, and residential development including approximately 2,000 single family homes and 2,400 multi-family units in a wide variety of types, sizes, and configurations. The anticipated population at build-out, which is anticipated to occur over 25+ years, is approximately 11,073 persons. The total assessed value at 5 years (2024) is estimated to be $36,593,000, and the total assessed value at 10 years (2029) is estimated to be $76,202,500. The total City tax paid in 5 years is estimated to be $968,739 and total City tax paid in 10 years is estimated to be $3,643,555. Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the Districts. Any such approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan. B. Public Benefits. The organization of the Districts is intended to enable the Project to deliver a number of extraordinary direct and indirect public benefits, including: smart growth management through (i) New Urbanist principles, (ii) Argi-Urban development, (iii) Multi-Modal Transportation, and 12 (iv) Zero Energy Ready Homes (collectively, the “Public Benefits”). The purpose of the Districts is to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements necessary to enable Project to develop as planned, including the Public Benefits. A detailed description of the Public Benefits and additional extraordinary benefits of the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit J. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, a District shall not be authorized to issue any Debt, impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees for purpose of repayment of Debt on any property within the Project unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits specifically related to the phase of development or Public Improvements which will be financed with such Debt, Debt Mill Levy or Fees, are secured in a manner approved by the City Manager. To satisfy this prerequisite to the issuance of Debt and to the imposition of taxes for Debt and Fees, delivery of the Public Benefits for each phase of the Project must be secured by one or both of the following methods, as applicable: 1. For any of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts, each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City agreeing to provide such Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-fiscal year obligation of the District under TABOR before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under an applicable Approved Development Plan for the Project or by securing performance of that obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Manager; and 2. For any of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the Project, each such Developer must enter into a development agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable Approved Development Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for the Project or to secure such obligations with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Manager. C. Assessed Valuation. The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately zero $0.00 for purposes of this Service Planand, at build out, is expected to be One Hundred Forty Five Million Dollars ($145,000,000). These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan. V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA Other than the real property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the Districts shall not include any real property into the Districts without the City Council’s prior written approval and 13 in compliance with the Special District Act. Once a District has issued Debt, it shall not exclude real property from the District’s boundaries without the prior written consent of the City Council. VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE The Districts’ Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible electors” of the Districts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End Users who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the Districts’ Boards as development within the Service Area progresses. The Districts shall not enter into any agreement by which the End Users’ electoral control of the Boards is removed or diminished. VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS A. General Grant of Powers. The Districts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the Service Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions, restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan. If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such powers and authority shall be deemed to be a part hereof and available to or exercised by the Districts if the City Council first approves the exercise of such powers or authority by the Districts. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. The Districts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise their other powers and authority under the Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan: 1. Eminent Domain Restriction The Districts shall not exercise their statutory power of eminent domain without first obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the Districts’ exercise of their eminent domain power is being exercised voluntarily acquiesced to by the Districts and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the Districts’ sovereign powers and shall not negatively affect the Districts’ status as political subdivision of the State as conferred by the Special District Act. 14 2. Fee Limitation All Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, may imposed by any of the Districts upon all property within their respective boundaries only if such Fees are due and payable no later than upon the issuance of a building permit by the City. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, this Fee limitation shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of the Districts, nor shall this Fee limitation apply to a District if a majority of the District’s Board is composed of End Users. 3. Operations and Maintenance The primary purpose of the Districts is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop and finance a portion of the Public Improvements. The Districts shall dedicate the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners’ association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The Districts are specifically authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity. The Districts shall also be specifically authorized to conduct operations and maintenance functions related to the Public Improvements that are not provided by the City or other governmental entity, or to the extent that the Districts’ proposed operational and maintenance functions included services or activities that exceed those provided by the City or other governmental entity. Additionally, the Districts are authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity until such time that the Districts dissolve. 4. Fire Protection Restriction The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related improvements installed as part of the water system shall not be limited by this subsection. 5. Public Safety Services Restriction The Districts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However, the Districts may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. 6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction 15 The Districts shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager. This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the Districts to the United States Government or the State. 7. Golf Course Construction Restriction Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the Districts shall not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. 8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written approval from the City Manager. 9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation The Districts shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption otherwise available to the Districts under the City Code. 10. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Acknowledging that the City and other existing special districts operating within the City currently own and operate treatment facilities for potable water and wastewater that are available to provide services to the Service Area, the Districts shall not plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain such facilities without obtaining the City Council’s prior written approval. 11. Sub-district Restriction The Districts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act without the prior written approval of the City Manager. 12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the issuing District shall obtain the certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows: 16 We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of the District’s Service Plan. We [I] certify that (1) the net effective interest rate (calculated as defined in C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax- exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the Debt], including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable considering the financial circumstances of the District. 13. Special Assessments The Districts shall not impose special assessments without the prior written approval of the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be constructed and/or installed by the Districts. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public Improvements may vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit G, are approximately Three Hundred Twenty-Five Million One Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates are based upon preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements and include all construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as Exhibit H. Changes in the Public Improvements or costs, which are approved by the City in an Approved Development Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope, and definition of Public Improvements. The design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will be determined by the Districts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned Development and the availability of funding sources. The Districts may, in their discretion, phase the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer, delay, reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. The Districts shall also be permitted to allocate costs between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in their discretion. The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to 17 certain operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following requirements: A. Development Standards. The Districts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The Districts directly, or indirectly through any Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing such work. Unless waived by the City, the Districts shall be required, in accordance with the City Code, to post a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for any Public Improvements to be constructed by the Districts. Such development security may be released in the City Manager’s discretion when the constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public Improvements, unless such release is prohibited by or in conflict with any City Code provision or State law. Any limitation or requirement concerning the time within which the City must review the Districts’ proposals or applications for an Approved Development Plan or other land use approval is hereby waived by the Districts. B. Contracting. The Districts shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and construction contracting. C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the Districts from the Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for improvements. Land, easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at no cost to the City, shall include an ALTA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites required in the City Code. D. Equal Employment and Discrimination. In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the Districts shall not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging, promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the Districts to accomplish the purposes of this Service Plan. 18 IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair, replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements. A. Financial Plan. The Districts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit I and incorporated by reference, reflects the Districts’ anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the Districts derived from Districts mill levies, Fees imposed by the Districts, specific ownership taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan is based on economic, political and industry conditions as they exist presently and reasonable projections and estimates of future conditions. These projections and estimates are not to be interpreted as the only method of implementation of the Districts’ goals and objectives but rather a representation of one feasible alternative. Other financial structures may be used so long they are in compliance with this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this Section IX. Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan anticipates that the District will acquire, construct, and complete all Public Improvements needed to serve the Service Area. The Financial Plan demonstrates that the Districts will have the financial ability to discharge all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore, the Districts will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an opinion as to whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the Districts at the time of issuance. B. Mill Levies. It is anticipated that the Districts will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries. In doing so, the following shall apply: 1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, which is sixty (60) mills. 2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies 19 The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum. 3. Operating Mill Levy Each District may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to sixty (60) mills until that District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, the District’s Operating Mill Levy shall not exceed twenty (20) mills at any point. 4. Gallagher Adjustments In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable Property changes after January 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the District’s Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. 5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has been approved by a Service Plan Amendment. 6. Refunding Debt The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding purposes if: (1) a majority of the issuing District’s Board is composed of End Users and have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding will result in a net present value savings. 7. Maximum Debt Authorization The Districts anticipate approximately Three Hundred Twenty Five Million One Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in project costs in 2018 dollars as set forth in Exhibit G, and anticipate issuing approximately Two Hundred Three Million Dollars ($203,000,000) in Debt to pay such costs as set forth in Exhibit I, which Debt issuance amount shall be the amount of the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts collectively shall not issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. Bonds, loans, notes or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum Debt 20 Authorization. Intergovernmental Capital Pledge Agreements among two or more of the Districts pledging the collection and payment of property taxes or Fees by one District for the repayment of Debt by a separate issuing District shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts must seek prior resolution approval by the City Council to issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization to pay the actual costs of the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit G plus inflation, contingencies and other unforeseen expenses associated with such Public Improvements. Such approval by the City Council shall not constitute a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment so long as increases are reasonably related to the Public Improvements set forth in Exhibit E and any Approved Development Plan. C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued. The maximum interest rate on any Debt is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities. D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. The Districts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount paid by the Districts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The Districts shall provide this written opinion to the City before issuing any Debt based on it. E. Disclosure to Purchasers. In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings units in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other taxing governmental entities, the property taxes imposed under the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy and possibly the Regional Mill Levy, Districts shall not be authorized to issue any Debt under this Service Plan until there is included in the Developer’s Approved Development Plan provisions that require the following: 1. That the Developer, and its successors and assigns, shall prepare and submit to the City Manager for his approval a disclosure notice in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit K (the “Disclosure Notice”); 2. That when the Disclosure Notice is approved by the City Manager, the Developer shall record the Disclosure Notice in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders Office; and 3. That the approved Disclosure Notice shall be provided by the Developer, and by its successors and assigns, to each potential End User purchaser of a residential lot 21 or dwelling unit in the Service Area before that purchaser enters into a written agreement for the purchase and sale of that residential lot or dwelling unit. F. External Financial Advisor. An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the issuing Districts to provide a written opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the issuing Districts once the total amount of Debt issued by the Districts exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial Advisor is to provide advice to the issuing Districts’ Boards regarding the proposed terms and whether Debt conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the Districts, the projected tax base increase in the Districts, the security offered and other considerations as may be identified by the Advisor. Each issuing District shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction, or other appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the External Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the Advisor’s opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature, couponing, credit spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details of the proposed Debt serve the best interest of the Districts. Debt shall not be undertaken by the Districts if found to be unreasonable by the External Financial Advisor. G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. Any Debt of the Districts shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form: “By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt of the City of Fort Collins” Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property within the Service Area. H. Security for Debt. The Districts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the Districts’ obligations; nor shall anything in the Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in the event of default by the Districts in the payment of any such obligations. I. TABOR Compliance. 22 The Districts shall comply with the provisions of TABOR. In the discretion of the Districts’ Boards, the Districts may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain under the control of the District’s Board. J. Districts’ Operating Costs. The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial operations, are anticipated to be $200,000, which will be eligible for reimbursement from Debt proceeds. In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated and maintained. The first year’s operating budget is estimated to be $100,000. Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy as set forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as other revenues legally available to the Districts. X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS The Districts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the Districts shall impose a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries under the following terms: A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five (5) mills as part of the Districts’ initial TABOR election. The Districts shall also seek from the electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City obligating the Districts to pay as a multiple-fiscal year obligation the proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining such voter-approval of this intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the Districts issuing any Debt under this Service Plan. B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. The Districts shall each impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills within one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the Districts requesting the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed. C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. 23 Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to property owners within the Service Area. The City shall make a good faith effort to require planned developments that (i) are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional Improvement also impose a Regional Mill Levy, to the extent possible. D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public improvements that the Districts would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re- design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law. E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as follows: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement If the City and the Districts have executed an intergovernmental agreement concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement; 2. No Intergovernmental Agreement If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the Districts and the City, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating, redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users of the Districts as prioritized and determined by the City. F. Regional Mill Levy Term. The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed. G. Completion of Regional Improvements. All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year Regional Mill Levy term. H. City Authority to Require Imposition. 24 The City’s authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy shall expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the Districts first imposes a Debt Mill Levy. I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the Aggregate Mill Levy. J. Gallagher Adjustment. In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after January 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy may be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the Districts’ Boards in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. XI. CITY FEES The Districts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code. XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii) are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or governmental powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable non-bankruptcy law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 943(b)(6). XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS A. General. Each of the Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no later than September 1st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the Districts has been issued. They Districts may file a consolidated annual report. The annual report may be made available to the public on the City’s website. 25 B. Board Meetings. Each of the Districts’ Boards shall hold at least one public board meeting in three of the four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after the Districts’ creation. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in accordance with the requirements of the Special District Act and other applicable State Law. This meeting requirement shall not apply until there is at least one End User of property within the District. Also, this requirement shall no longer apply when a majority of the directors on the District’s Board are End Users. C. Report Requirements. Unless waived by the City Manager, each of the Districts’ annual report must include the following: 1. Narrative A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service Plan for the report year. 2. Financial Statements Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and expenditures) for the report year. 3. Capital Expenditures Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements in the report year. 4. Financial Obligations Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year. 5. Board Contact Information The names and contact information of the current directors on the District’s Board, any District manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the 26 report. The District’s current office address, phone number, email address and any website address shall also be listed in the report. 6. Other Information Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably necessary by the City Manager. D. Reporting of Significant Events. The annual report of each District shall also include information as to any of the following that occurred during the report year: 1. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District’s boundaries as of December 31 of the report year. 2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year. 3. Copies of the District’s rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to the District’s rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year. 4. A summary of any litigation which involves the District’s Public Improvements as of December 31 of the report year. 5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report year. 6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument. 7. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period. E. Failure to Submit. In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District’s Board at its last known address. The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan, at the discretion of the City Manager. XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS 27 This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances. The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts to provide required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs consistent with the then-current Approved Development Plans for the Project. Any action of one or more of the Districts, which is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided in Section XV of this Service Plan or any other applicable provision of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service Plan. All other departures from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether such departures are a material modification under this Service Plan or the Special District Act. XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action of the Districts that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless otherwise provided in this Service Plan. Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service Plan Amendment include, without limitation: 1. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to the taxpayers of any of the Districts; 2. Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan; 3. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a facility required by the Service Plan; and 4. Failure to comply with any of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this Service Plan. Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation changes in quantities of improvements, facilities or equipment; immaterial cost differences; and actions expressly authorized in this Service Plan. XVI. DISSOLUTION Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which any District was created have been accomplished, the District shall file a petition in district court for dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the 28 District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other financial obligations as required pursuant to the Special District Act and any other applicable State law. XVII. SANCTIONS Should any of the Districts undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council approval or consent or City Manager approval or consent, as required in this Service Plan, or that constitutes a material modification to this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under the Special Districts Act, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate: 1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act; 2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District’s development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services; 3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement under which the District is in default; or 4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including seeking injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law. XVIII. CONCLUSION It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts; 2. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts is inadequate for present and projected needs; 3. The Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service Area; and 4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL 29 The Districts agree to incorporate the City Council’s resolution approving this Service Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented to the District Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado. 30 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries 31 EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map 32 EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries 33 EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map 34 EXHIBIT E Public Improvements Description of Public Improvements a. Streets. On-site and off-site streets, curbs, gutters, culverts, other drainage facilities, sidewalks, bridges, parking facilities, paving, lighting, grading, utility relocation necessitated by public rights-of- way, monumentation, signage, snow removal, streetscapes and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. b. Water. On-site and off-site potable and non-potable water supply improvements, including water rights, storage facilities, transmission and distribution lines, pumping stations, fire hydrants, meters, facilities, equipment, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. c. Storm and Sanitary Sewer. On-site and Off-site storm and sanitary sewer collection and transmission improvements, including storage facilities, collection mains and laterals, pumping stations, lift stations, transmission lines, storm sewer, flood and surface drainage facilities and systems, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. d. Parks and Recreation. On-site and off-site public park, open space and recreation facilities or services, including parks, bike paths, pedestrian ways, public plazas and courtyards, water features, signage, monumentation, art, gardens, farm facilities, orchards, picnic areas, recreation facilities, playground equipment/areas, park shelters, public area landscaping and weed control, streetscaping, outdoor lighting of all types, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. 35 EXHIBIT F Vicinity Map 36 EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Cost Estimates JOB NO. DATE: BY: 1230.0001.00 6/27/2018 JAZ No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total $11,000,000 $21,499,312 $105,255,350 $15,732,500 $11,081,500 $13,814,500 $10,286,290 $8,000,000 $44,215,395 $240,884,847 $48,176,969 $36,132,727 $325,194,543 This is a conceptual opinion of cost and supplied only as a guide. TST is not responsible for fluctuation in costs of material, labor or unforeseen contingencies. Total Infrastructure Cost EARTHWORK NONPOTABLE WATER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) ADMINISTRATIVE & MISCELLANEOUS Contingency (20% of Costs) Engineering / Survey / C. M. (15% of Costs) CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF COST PROJECT: Montava Metropolitan Districts Additional Costs Construction Costs WATER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) LANDSCAPING, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARM FACILITIES STORM SEWER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) RECREATION FACILITIES SANITARY SEWER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) STREETS (ONSITE & OFFSITE) 37 EXHIBIT H Public Improvements Maps 38 EXHIBIT I Financial Plan MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 1 Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan 2050 Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds 2082 SP#1 SP#2 SP#3 SP#4 SP#5 SP#6 [All Plans] Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Available Available Available Available Available Available Available YEAR Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 20170000000 20180000000 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 230,000 0 0 0 0 0 230,000 2021 504,915 0 0 0 0 0 504,915 2022 904,411 0 0 0 0 0 904,411 2023 1,421,428 0 0 0 0 0 1,421,428 2024 1,674,813 205,000 0 0 0 0 1,879,813 2025 2,078,593 542,656 0 0 0 0 2,621,249 2026 2,203,309 889,802 0 0 0 0 3,093,111 2027 2,203,309 1,522,869 0 0 0 0 3,726,178 2028 2,335,507 1,783,146 365,000 0 0 0 4,483,653 2029 2,335,507 2,163,700 486,881 0 0 0 4,986,088 2030 2,475,638 2,293,522 905,929 0 0 0 5,675,089 2031 2,475,638 2,293,522 1,527,124 0 0 0 6,296,284 2032 2,624,176 2,431,134 1,740,041 160,000 0 0 6,955,350 2033 2,624,176 2,431,134 2,108,769 429,413 0 0 7,593,492 2034 2,781,627 2,577,002 2,235,295 842,626 0 0 8,436,549 2035 2,781,627 2,577,002 2,235,295 1,341,070 0 0 8,934,993 2036 2,948,524 2,731,622 2,369,413 1,810,499 110,000 0 9,970,058 2037 2,948,524 2,731,622 2,369,413 1,969,969 197,280 0 10,216,808 2038 3,125,436 2,895,519 2,511,578 2,088,167 295,876 0 10,916,576 2039 3,125,436 2,895,519 2,511,578 2,088,167 537,699 0 11,158,398 2040 3,312,962 3,069,250 2,662,272 2,213,458 632,734 95,000 11,985,676 2041 3,312,962 3,069,250 2,662,272 2,213,458 756,274 41,443 12,055,659 2042 3,511,739 3,253,405 2,822,009 2,346,265 801,651 297,214 13,032,283 2043 3,511,739 3,253,405 2,822,009 2,346,265 801,651 258,163 12,993,232 2044 3,722,444 3,448,610 2,991,329 2,487,041 849,750 475,094 13,974,267 2045 3,722,444 3,448,610 2,991,329 2,487,041 849,750 514,518 14,013,691 2046 3,945,790 3,655,526 3,170,809 2,636,263 900,735 592,608 14,901,731 2047 3,945,790 3,655,526 3,170,809 2,636,263 900,735 592,608 14,901,731 2048 4,182,538 3,874,858 3,361,057 2,794,439 954,779 628,164 15,795,835 2049 4,182,538 3,874,858 3,361,057 2,794,439 954,779 628,164 15,795,835 2050 4,433,490 4,107,349 3,562,721 2,962,106 1,012,065 665,854 16,743,585 2051 4,433,490 4,107,349 3,562,721 2,962,106 1,012,065 665,854 16,743,585 2052 4,699,500 4,353,790 3,776,484 3,139,832 1,072,789 705,805 17,748,200 2053 4,699,500 4,353,790 3,776,484 3,139,832 1,072,789 705,805 17,748,200 2054 0 4,615,017 4,003,073 3,328,222 1,137,157 748,153 13,831,622 2055 0 4,615,017 4,003,073 3,328,222 1,137,157 748,153 13,831,622 2056 0 4,891,919 4,243,257 3,527,915 1,205,386 793,043 14,661,520 2057 0 4,891,919 4,243,257 3,527,915 1,205,386 793,043 14,661,520 2058 0 0 4,497,853 3,739,590 1,277,709 840,625 10,355,777 2059 0 0 4,497,853 3,739,590 1,277,709 840,625 10,355,777 2060 0 0 4,767,724 3,963,965 1,354,372 891,063 10,977,124 2061 0 0 4,767,724 3,963,965 1,354,372 891,063 10,977,124 2062 0 0 0 4,201,803 1,435,634 944,527 6,581,964 2063 0 0 0 4,201,803 1,435,634 944,527 6,581,964 2064 0 0 0 4,453,911 1,521,772 1,001,198 6,976,882 2065 0 0 0 4,453,911 1,521,772 1,001,198 6,976,882 2066 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,061,270 2,674,348 2067 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,061,270 2,674,348 1 2050 2082 YEAR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 1 2050 2082 YEAR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Development Summary (Aggregate) Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 6/20/18) Residential Development Commercial Development Product Type SFDs MF Retail Office Industrial Base $ ('18) $450,000 $225,000 $150/sf $200/sf $100/sf Res'l Totals Comm'l SF Total* 2017 - - - - - - - 2018 - - - - - - - 2019 - - - - - - - 2020 160 50 210 20,000 - - 20,000 2021 175 150 325 20,000 - 30,000 50,000 2022 170 125 295 20,000 - 40,000 60,000 2023 180 100 280 25,000 15,000 20,000 60,000 2024 180 - 180 25,000 - - 25,000 2025 180 180 360 - 25,000 30,000 55,000 2026 180 90 270 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 2027 160 90 250 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000 2028 175 180 355 10,000 - - 10,000 2029 175 80 255 - 10,000 40,000 50,000 2030 160 100 260 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 2031 130 - 130 10,000 - 40,000 50,000 2032 140 - 140 20,000 - - 20,000 2033 150 100 250 - 30,000 50,000 80,000 2034 140 100 240 10,000 20,000 50,000 80,000 2035 - 120 120 - - 30,000 30,000 2036 - 110 110 - - - - 2037 - 100 100 10,000 - 50,000 60,000 2038 - 110 110 - 10,000 - 10,000 2039 - 75 75 - - 25,000 25,000 2040 - - - - 20,000 - 20,000 2041 - 75 75---- 2042 - 75 75 10,000 20,000 - 30,000 2043 - - - - 10,000 - 10,000 2044 - - - - 10,000 - 10,000 2045 - - - - - - - 2046 - - - - - - - 2047 - - - - - - - 2,455 2,010 4,465 210,000 200,000 445,000 855,000 MV @ Full Buildout $1,104,750,000 $452,250,000 $1,557,000,000 $31,500,000 $40,000,000 $44,500,000 $116,000,000 (base prices;un-infl.) AV @ Full Buildout $112,104,000 $33,640,000 (base prices;un-infl.) 77% of AV 23% of AV notes: Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum 6/21/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx Dev Summary Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co. 4 Jun 20, 2018 4:45 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~MK (Montava MD 17:SPLBD) SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Combined Results ~~~~~~~~ GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 SUBORDINATE BONDS, SERIES 2019B ~~~ [ Preliminary -- for discussion only ] Dated Date 12/01/2023 12/01/2027 12/01/2031 12/01/2035 12/01/2039 12/01/2044 12/01/2019 Delivery Date 12/01/2023 12/01/2027 12/01/2031 12/01/2035 12/01/2039 12/01/2044 12/01/2019 Sources: SERIES 2023A SERIES 2027A SERIES 2031A SERIES 2035A SERIES 2039A SERIES 2044A SERIES 2019B Total Bond Proceeds: Par Amount 40,425,000.00 42,075,000.00 40,995,000.00 38,300,000.00 14,635,000.00 11,160,000.00 15,157,000.00 202,747,000.00 40,425,000.00 42,075,000.00 40,995,000.00 38,300,000.00 14,635,000.00 11,160,000.00 15,157,000.00 202,747,000.00 Uses: SERIES 2023A SERIES 2027A SERIES 2031A SERIES 2035A SERIES 2039A SERIES 2044A SERIES 2019B Total Project Fund Deposits: Project Fund 35,572,991.67 37,024,791.67 36,074,391.67 33,702,866.67 12,880,858.33 9,819,950.00 14,702,290.00 179,778,140.01 Other Fund Deposits: Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,235,008.33 3,367,208.33 3,280,808.33 3,065,133.33 1,168,741.67 893,650.00 15,010,549.99 Delivery Date Expenses: Cost of Issuance 1,617,000.00 1,683,000.00 1,639,800.00 1,532,000.00 585,400.00 446,400.00 454,710.00 7,958,310.00 40,425,000.00 42,075,000.00 40,995,000.00 38,300,000.00 14,635,000.00 11,160,000.00 15,157,000.00 202,747,000.00 5 39 EXHIBIT J “PUBLIC BENEFITS” 1. New Urbanism: New Urbanism is an urban design movement which promotes environmentally friendly habits by creating walkable neighborhoods containing a wide range of housing and job types. Montava has been designed by the industry leaders in New Urbanist design, DPZ, and it influences every aspect of the Project. The Project may implement New Urbanism by one or more of the following: a. Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric; b. Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5- minute walk shed; c. Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood; d. Creating walkable streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations; e. Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets; f. Integrating market rate and affordable housing. 2. Agri-Urban Development: Montava will have an approximately 40 acre organic farm. The farm will serve the entire community of the City with the highest quality, wide variety of locally grown organic vegetables. While there may be other uses on the farm in the long term, the primary business model is intended to be organic vegetables. 3. Zero Energy Ready Homes: Montava’s residential development will be built to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home “ZERH” standard. 4. Multi-Modal Transportation: Montava will include multi-modal transportation design and integration with the entire community of the City from the beginning, which may include bicycle paths to future transit integration. Activating the community trail system and integrating that into the overall City trail network, is an area of direct impact the Montava will make. The Districts may build and maintain the trail system that is internal to Montava and can also be used to facilitate the construction of “off site” trail systems to integrate Montava with the rest of the City. OTHER EXTRAORDINARY BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT* Energy and Water Conservation: x The developer is working with the City of Fort Collins Utility to create a community that is founded on renewable energy use, energy conservation, with community wide impact. An example we are working on could include every home having a battery which is charged at night by the city’s wind turbine power generation, and used during the day by the Utility for solar smoothing. 40 x 85% of the irrigation needs will be met by non-potable water sources, and the community overall will be managed from a “we conserve resources” perspective though the Districts. x The Developer is exploring management by the a community wide “in home” water conservation effort by acting as the middle man between ELCO and individual home owners. By purchasing water with a master meter, the District can remove the excessive water dedication needed to account for individual variation in use. By implementing a community wide water conservation approach managed by the Districts, the developer expects to achieve a substantial savings in overall water use. Community Park: Integration is at the heart of what Montava represents. The developer is working with the City’s Parks department to create an 80+ acre community park that will be an activity and enjoyment hub for all NE Fort Collins. The intention is to activate this park from the beginning of Montava’s life, not 20+ years in the future as the current plan dictates. This allows an entire generation of City residents to enjoy it. The Districts are anticipated to fund portions of this effort directly, and it’s use for traditional infrastructure offers flexibility for additional developer investment and flexible terms that can make this early development possible. Natural Areas: The developer is working to provide natural areas in serval ways, including the naturalization of over 150 acres of storm water land that will become a beautiful natural amenity to the entire area, while protecting all of east Fort Collins from floods. The developer will also be incorporating, where possible, nature in the City throughout Montava. Both of these efforts can be activated and supported if necessary by Districts. Affordable Housing: Affordable housing is a national crisis, and is not new to the City real estate reality. Montava has been designed from the very beginning to incorporate substantial affordable housing options including both innovative single site multi family, and creative distributed ownership model affordable housing. The developer intend for at least 10% of the housing units in Montava to be affordable, distributed between both owned and “for rent” units. The developer intends to partner with the City, Housing Catalyst, Land Trusts like Elevations, and many other partners to attack this challenging problem. Every aspect of this costs additional money beyond traditional development costs. In this area, the Districts have a strong but indirect benefit. Having the Districts to help offset traditional infrastructure costs enables more flexible and aggressive approaches to integrating affordable housing into the community by enabling land sales below market, the offset of infrastructure costs in lot costs, and other areas. Housing Variety: Housing variety is a critical element of building a Traditional Neighborhood Design community. DPZ specializes in designing communities with tremendous, and beautiful, integration of diverse and wide ranging housing options. When done intentionally, and with the best expertise which we have hired, creates an incredible living environment that is unlike 99% of what has been built in the past 50+ years in our country. This costs more money in all phases of planning, designing, and execution of development. The Districts have an indirect impact on our ability to close the gap on these additional costs. Innovation: Innovation is taking many forms in Montava. The developer is working with CSU in multiple areas including agriculture, waste water, energy and affordable housing. The 41 developer is working with global leader Siemens in partnership with the City of Fort Collins Utility to create an incredibly innovative integration of technology around both energy and daily life. The developer intends to make the Fort Collins Broadband a foundational technology for every home owner from day-one. Employment: Employment opportunities exist where highly educated and innovative people live, and community services and amenities are offered to those employees. The developer is working to create a place where employers will want to open businesses, and their innovative employees will want to live. The developer has made room in the appropriate areas of its Master Plan for this type of use. Community Services: The town center is intended to include things like community retail and commercial opportunities. The developer intends to partner with the City to develop a Community Rec Center, and with the Poudre Library District to develop a library for the next generation. The Districts may be used to help fund various aspects of public facilities like the Rec Center. *(Not considered “Public Benefits” for the purpose of this Service Plan) Description of New Urbanist Principles Which May Be Implemented in Montava 1. Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric. Montava intends to include a wide range of uses and housing, specifically on display in the town center and early development phases. The town center includes stand-alone commercial, incubator commercial, office, entertainment, mixed-use, multi-family, and high intensity single family. It is located along the southern edge of Montava to knit together both development in Montava and future development to the south. The town center is in a traditional town center format, with walkable streets that extend beyond the center, into the surrounding neighborhood fabric. While accessible by car, the town center is located at the convergence of major and minor streets, trails, and open space amenities. Within the core of the town center, more dense development is planned, including non-residential and multi-family residential at relatively high densities. Moving out from the town center towards the adjacent neighborhoods, the density steps down slightly and a variety of different housing types mix together. To achieve this intensity and connected network of streets and trails, careful planning, engineering, and financing are necessary to implement dense infrastructure, a tight grid of streets, on and off-street trails, and stormwater, including existing and future ditches. 2. Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed. Montava is intended to be phased as a series of neighborhoods, varying in character and intensity. While the site is intended to appear to be a continual grid, natural topographic features, trails, streets, and stormwater facilities divide it into sub-areas that will develop their own 42 identity within the whole of Montava. Each neighborhood is intended to be designed to include a mix of housing types and intensities. Neighborhoods may be located to either address a series of amenities along its edge, such as parks, schools, and gardens, or a strong amenity within its boundaries. Each neighborhood is intended to be analyzed on the scale of a 5-minute walk (more or less), within which smaller amenities and playgrounds are planned, near to housing. The town center, the farm, and the City park may serve as major amenities, drawing people together with the majority able to reach one or more easily by foot. Achieving this structure requires a connected grid of streets that move from one neighborhood to another, and the ability to vary density and use within each. Connections between and through neighborhoods are necessary for the success of Montava’s major amenities, including the town center. 3. Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood. Each neighborhood is intended to include at least 3 zones of intensity, which is a key New Urban metric for achieving diverse and walkable communities. While some neighborhoods overall may be lower in intensity and others higher, within each neighborhood housing types are intended to be mixed. This mixing allows for an overall higher intensity of housing by ensuring distribution of higher intensity housing which can be problematic when concentrated. In addition to density through mixed-use, Montava seeks to achieve density through smaller lots and houses, arranged in courts and clusters. These are mixed into each neighborhood, adding intensity while integrating into neighborhood character. A key to achieving intensity and a mix of housing is having a consistent system of alleys. Higher intensity housing does not work without a system of alleys, and the alley allows housing of different types and scales to coexist by removing the eyesores of parking and service from streets. 4. Creating walkable and bike able streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations. Walkability relies upon well designed streets, systems of trails, and distributed destinations to encourage walking and biking rather than driving. Creating a walkable place isn’t only about travel mode either, it is about connecting neighbors with each other and promoting public health by encouraging residents to spend time out in the community. Walkability begins with a pattern of development that moves cars from the front to the back, behind homes and businesses usually accessed by alleys. The design of the street space makes pedestrians feel comfortable by reducing the amount of street space given to cars and providing quality street trees, lighting scaled and designed for pedestrians, and comfortable sidewalks. Sidewalks must also be scaled to the intensity of the area. In lower intensity areas, two people should be able to walk abreast. In higher intensity areas, room for 3 or 4 people next to each other is necessary. On-street parking is another key feature of walkability, shielding pedestrians from moving cars. Reducing pavement width and car speed makes most streets bike able, but key routes are also configured as bike boulevards and others with dedicated facilities. Combined with walkable streets, the regional trail network is connected into the core of Montava, and additional trails are provided through the center and along the edge. Destinations in Montava are distributed to encourage pedestrian and bike movement throughout the site, and to encourage neighborliness. The farm anchors the NE corner, along with farm-related retail and services in a small neighborhood center. The high school and middle school anchor the SE corner. The western edge is anchored by the City park and the elementary school. And the core of Montava is anchored by 43 the town center, central square, and a grand avenue connecting the farm and town center to each other. 5. Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets. A connected grid of streets is a core new urbanist principle. Montava has a strong street grid that creates walkable blocks and distributes traffic throughout the site. The street network makes key connections to existing neighbors and along significant arterials. Within Montava the street network is primarily made up of low-speed, pedestrian-centric streets, meant to distribute and slow traffic while creating a significant amount of capacity. The grid integrates Timberline, Mountain Vista, Giddings, Country Club, and Richard’s Lake, with numerous connections in- between. 6. Integrating market rate and affordable housing. Along with mixing housing types, Montava strives to include affordable housing throughout. Housing affordability is achieved within the market and through subsidy. On the market side, the range of housing will include large, expensive housing as well as small, inexpensive housing, and everything in-between. Market rate housing is made more affordable by limiting the lot size and building size, and arranging housing in courts and on pedestrian ways that reduce infrastructure cost per unit. Subsidized housing is also integrated into Montava, using a strategy of dispersion rather than concentration. Historically areas of concentrated poverty create self-perpetuating cycles and are targets for community pushback. Distributing subsidized housing throughout Montava reduces any associated negative impacts while it also helps break the cycle of poverty by removing social barriers. Both market-based and subsidized housing benefit from reduced or deferred infrastructure costs, lowering the base cost of improved property. 44 EXHIBIT K Disclosure Notice ªª NOTICE OF INCLUSION IN A RESIDENTIAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT AND POSSIBLE PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES Legal description of the property and address: (Insert legal description and property address). This property is located in the following metropolitan district: (Insert District Name). In addition to standard property taxes identified on the next page, this property is subject to a metropolitan district mill levy (another property tax) of up to: (Insert mill levy maximum). Based on the property’s inclusion in the metropolitan district, an average home sales price of $300,000 could result in ADDITIONAL annual property taxes up to: (Insert amount). The next page provides examples of estimated total annual property taxes that could be due on this property, first if located outside the metropolitan district and next if located within the metropolitan district. Note: property that is not within a metropolitan district would not pay the ADDITIONAL amount. The metropolitan district board can be reached as follows: (Insert contact information). You may wish to consult with: (1) the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, to determine the specific amount of metropolitan district taxes currently due on this property; and (2) the metropolitan district board, to determine the highest possible amount of metropolitan district property taxes that could be assessed on this property. ESTIMATE OF PROPERTY TAXES Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value Without the District Taxing Entity Mill Levies (2017**) Annual tax levied Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert amount Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value With the District (Assuming Maximum District Mill Levy) Taxing Entity Mill Levies (2017**) Annual tax levied Insert District Name Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert total **This estimate of mill levies is based upon mill levies certified by the Larimer County Assessor’s Office in December 20__ for collection in 20__, and is intended only to provide approximations of the total overlapping mill levies within the District. The stated mill levies are subject to change and you should contact the Larimer County Assessor’s Office to obtain accurate and current information. FINANCIAL HEALTH OF METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Financial information for (Insert District Name Here) as of (Insert Date of Last Annual Report Here): Notes Amount Total Assessed Value Insert Notes Insert Amount Current Mill Levy & Annual Revenue Insert Mill Insert Amount Current Debt Mill Levy & Annual Revenue Insert Mill Insert Amount Outstanding Debt Insert Term Insert Amount Anticipated Payoff Year Insert Notes Insert Amount Additional information regarding (Insert District Name Here) financial health and formation can be found at the City of Fort Collins website, available at: fcgov.com. In addition, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs may have the following materials available: Audited Financial Statements Annual Budget Annual Report on the Service Plan Certification of Election Results Certification of Tax Levies Notice of Authorization of General Obligation Debt Notice of Issuance of General Obligation Debt Transparency – Notice to Electors Available at: https://dola.colorado.gov/lgis/lgFinances.jsf Or Division of Local Government 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 864-7720 Fax: (303) 864-0751 OR Contact the District at: _________Metropolitan District ______ _________[Address]________________ _________[Address]________________ _________[Phone]__________________ _________[Fax]____________________ _________[Email]___________________ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING IN RE MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO I, Hayley M. Budzinski, of lawful age and duly sworn, state: 1. I am a paralegal at the law firm of White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron acting on behalf of the proposed District in the above captioned matter. 2. That, pursuant to Section 32-1-204(1.5), C.R.S., the Notice of Public Hearing on Service Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was provided by U.S. first class mail on August 21, 2018, to the owners of record of all real property within the District as such owners of record are listed in the proposed service plan, as set forth on the list attached hereto as Exhibit B. Signed this 21st day of August, 2018. By: Hayley M. Budzinski 1938.0003; 921444 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SERVICE PLAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN RE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to § 32-1-204(1), C.R.S., a Service Plan (the “Service Plan”) for the proposed Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (“Districts”) has been filed and is available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Fort Collins. A public hearing on the Service Plan will be held by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins (the “City Council”) on Tuesday, September 4, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, or as soon thereafter as the City Council may hear such matter. The Districts are metropolitan districts. Public improvements authorized to be planned, designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped and financed, specifically including related eligible costs for acquisition and administration, as authorized by the Special District Act, except as specifically limited in the Service Plan to serve the future taxpayers and property owners of the Districts as determined by the Board of the Districts in its discretion. The proposed maximum mill levy each District is permitted to impose upon the taxable property within its boundaries and shall be sixty (60) mills for district improvements and operating costs, plus up to five (5) mills for regional improvements if required by the City, subject to the limitations set forth in the Service Plan. The proposed districts will be located generally on the undeveloped property south of Richards Lake Road, west of I-25 Intersection, north of E. Vine Drive, and east of Turnberry Road. A description of the land contained within the boundaries of the proposed Districts is as follows: A parcel of land located in east half of Section 32, and the west half of Section 33, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, and the north half of Section 4, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing approximately 998.49 acres, as further described in the Service Plan. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to § 32-1-203(3.5), C.R.S., any person owning property in the proposed Districts may request that such property be excluded from the Districts by submitting such request to the Fort Collins City Council no later than ten days prior to the public hearing. All protests and objections must be submitted in writing to the City Manager at or prior to the public hearing or any continuance or postponement thereof in order to be considered. All protests and objections to the Districts shall be deemed to be waived unless presented at the time and in the manner specified herein. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS PROVIDED IN COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-069 Published in: Fort Collins Coloradan Published on: August 21, 2018 EXHIBIT B MAILING LIST Parcel Owner Address City State Zip 88320‐00‐001 Anheuser‐Busch Foundation c/o Anheuser‐Busch Companies 1 Busch Place St. Louis CO 63118‐1849 88320‐00‐905 Poudre R‐1 School District 2407 LaPorte Ave Fort CollinsCO 80521‐2211 EXHIBIT C 2073 2074 MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds Cash-Flow Bonds >>> Surplus Total CF Bond Less Payments Accrued Available for Application Available for Date Bond Interest Toward Interest Less Payments Balance of Sub Bonds Less Payments Balance of Total Surplus Surplus Cum. Surplus CF Bond of Prior Year CF Bond Bonds on Balance Sub Bond + Int. on Bal. @ Toward Accrued Accrued Principal Toward Bond CF Bond CF Bond Cash Flow Release Debt Service Surplus Debt Service Issued 7.00% Interest 7.00% Interest Interest Issued Principal Principal Pmts. 0 0 12/1/19 41,261 0 41,261 0 41,261 15,157,000 0 15,157,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,063,878 0 1,105,139 0 15,157,000 0 0 0 0 0001,060,9900 1,138,3500 2,243,489 0 15,157,0000000 0001,060,9900 1,218,0340 3,461,523 0 15,157,0000000 0001,060,9900 1,303,2970 4,764,820 0 15,157,0000000 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,394,527 0 6,159,347 0 15,157,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,492,144 0 7,651,491 0 15,157,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,596,594 0 9,248,086 0 15,157,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 1,708,356 0 10,956,442 0 15,157,000 0000 0001,060,9900 1,827,9410 12,784,382 0 15,157,0000000 0001,060,9900 1,955,8970 14,740,279 0 15,157,0000000 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,092,810 0 16,833,089 0 15,157,000 0000 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,239,306 0 19,072,395 0 15,157,000 0000 0 0 0 1,060,990 0 2,396,058 0 21,468,453 0 15,157,000 0000 0001,060,9900 2,563,7820 24,032,234 0 15,157,0000000 2,262,012 0 2,262,012 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,682,256 1,201,022 24,513,469 0 15,157,000 2,262,012000 3,104,793 0 3,104,793 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,715,943 2,043,803 24,185,609 0 15,157,000 3,104,793 0 0 0 2,254,258 0 2,254,258 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,692,993 1,193,268 24,685,334 0 15,157,000 2,254,258 0 0 0 2,503,208 0 2,503,208 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,727,973 1,442,218 24,971,089 0 15,157,000 2,503,208000 2,762,376 0 2,762,376 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,747,976 1,701,386 25,017,680 0 15,157,000 2,762,376000 2,993,5980 2,993,5981,060,990 1,060,990 1,751,238 1,932,608 24,836,309 0 15,157,000 2,993,598000 2,753,476 0 2,753,476 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,738,542 1,692,486 24,882,365 0 15,157,000 2,753,476 0 0 0 2,819,059 0 2,819,059 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,741,766 1,758,069 24,866,062 0 15,157,000 2,819,059000 3,250,683 0 3,250,683 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,740,624 2,189,693 24,416,993 0 15,157,000 3,250,683 0 0 0 3,212,832 0 3,212,832 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,709,189 2,151,842 23,974,340 0 15,157,000 3,212,832000 3,605,467 0 3,605,467 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,678,204 2,544,477 23,108,067 0 15,157,000 3,605,467000 3,194,291 0 3,194,291 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,617,565 2,133,301 22,592,331 0 15,157,000 3,194,291 0 0 0 3,455,131 0 3,455,131 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,581,463 2,394,141 21,779,654 0 15,157,000 3,455,131 0 0 0 3,455,131 0 3,455,131 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,524,576 2,394,141 20,910,088 0 15,157,000 3,455,131 0 0 0 3,662,635 0 3,662,635 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,463,706 2,601,645 19,772,150 0 15,157,000 3,662,635000 3,662,235 0 3,662,235 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,384,050 2,601,245 18,554,956 0 15,157,000 3,662,235000 3,879,785 0 3,879,785 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,298,847 2,818,795 17,035,008 0 15,157,000 3,879,785000 3,879,385 0 3,879,385 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,192,451 2,818,395 15,409,063 0 15,157,000 3,879,385 0 0 0 4,110,800 0 4,110,800 1,060,990 1,060,990 1,078,634 3,049,810 13,437,888 0 15,157,000 4,110,800 0 0 0 4,111,208 0 4,111,208 1,060,990 1,060,990 940,652 3,050,218 11,328,322 0 15,157,000 4,111,208 0 0 0 3,203,8220 3,203,8221,060,990 1,060,990 792,983 2,142,832 9,978,472 0 15,157,000 3,203,822000 3,198,422 0 3,198,422 1,060,990 1,060,990 698,493 2,137,432 8,539,533 0 15,157,000 3,198,422 0 0 0 3,399,120 0 3,399,120 1,060,990 1,060,990 597,767 2,338,130 6,799,170 0 15,157,000 3,399,120 0 0 0 3,393,728 0 3,393,728 1,060,990 1,060,990 475,942 2,332,738 4,942,374 0 15,157,000 3,393,728 0 0 0 2,395,9770 2,395,9771,060,990 1,060,990 345,966 1,334,987 3,953,353 0 15,157,000 2,395,977000 2,402,977 0 2,402,977 1,060,990 1,060,990 276,735 1,341,987 2,888,101 0 15,157,000 2,402,977 0 0 0 2,544,9240 2,544,9241,060,990 1,060,990 202,167 1,483,934 1,606,334 0 15,157,000 2,544,924000 2,544,732 0 2,544,732 1,060,990 1,060,990 112,443 1,483,742 235,035 0 15,157,000 2,544,732000 1,529,364 0 1,529,364 1,060,990 1,060,990 16,452 251,487 0 216,887 14,940,113 1,529,364000 1,524,564 0 1,524,564 1,045,808 1,045,808 0 0 0 478,756 14,461,357 1,524,564000 1,620,8820 1,620,8821,012,295 1,012,295000 608,587 13,852,771 1,620,882000 1,620,615 0 1,620,615 969,694 969,694 0 0 0 650,921 13,201,849 1,620,615 0 0 0 622,148 0 622,148 924,129 622,148 301,981 0 301,981 0 13,201,849 622,148 0 0 0 623,748 0 623,748 924,129 623,748 321,520 0 623,501 0 13,201,849 623,748 0 0 0 636,425 0 636,425 924,129 636,425 331,350 0 954,850 0 13,201,849 636,425 0 0 0 638,766 0 638,766 924,129 638,766 352,203 0 1,307,053 0 13,201,849 638,766 0 0 0 277,443 0 277,443 924,129 277,443 738,180 0 2,045,233 0 13,201,849 277,443 0 0 0 276,043 0 276,043 924,129 276,043 791,253 0 2,836,486 0 13,201,849 276,043 0 0 0 292,390 0 292,390 924,129 292,390 830,294 0 3,666,780 0 13,201,849 292,390 0 0 0 295,590 0 295,590 924,129 295,590 885,214 0 4,551,994 0 13,201,849 295,590 0 0 0 19,068,479 0 19,068,479 924,129 924,129 318,640 4,870,634 0 13,201,849 0 18,996,613 71,866 71,866 0 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ __________ 117,042,521 0 117,042,521 57,008,793 38,383,190 63,430,465 63,430,465 15,157,000 15,157,000 116,970,655 71,866 71,866 6/20/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co. Draft: For discussion purposes only. 3 2073 2074 MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds Total Par: $187,590,000 Total Project: $165,075,850 Ser. 2023 Ser. 2027 Ser. 2031 Ser. 2035 Ser. 2039 Ser. 2044 $40,425,000 Par $42,075,000 Par $40,995,000 Par $38,300,000 Par $14,635,000 Par $11,160,000 Par Surplus [Net $35.573 MM] [Net $37.025 MM] [Net $36.074 MM] [Net $33.703 MM] [Net $12.881 MM] [Net $9.820 MM] Total Annual Release Cumulative Cov. of Net DS: Net Available Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Surplus 0% D/A Surplus for Debt Svc Service Service Service Service Service Service Service to $18,759,000 $18,759,000 Target $0 0.0% 0 00.0% 0 $0 0 0 0 0.0% 230,000 0 230,000 0 230,000 0.0% 504,915 0 504,915 0 734,915 0.0% 904,411 0 904,411 0 1,639,326 0.0% 1,421,428 $0 0 1,421,428 0 3,060,754 0.0% 1,879,813 1,617,000 1,617,000 262,813 0 3,323,568 116.3% 2,621,249 1,617,000 1,617,000 1,004,249 0 4,327,816 162.1% 3,093,111 1,692,000 1,692,000 1,401,111 0 5,728,927 182.8% 3,726,178 1,694,000 $0 1,694,000 2,032,178 0 7,761,105 220.0% 4,483,653 1,795,800 1,683,000 3,478,800 1,004,853 0 8,765,959 128.9% 4,986,088 1,793,400 1,683,000 3,476,400 1,509,688 0 10,275,647 143.4% 5,675,089 1,900,800 1,763,000 3,663,800 2,011,289 0 12,286,936 154.9% 6,296,284 1,903,600 1,759,800 $0 3,663,400 2,632,884 0 14,919,821 171.9% 6,955,350 2,015,800 1,866,600 1,639,800 5,522,200 1,433,150 0 16,352,971 126.0% 7,593,492 2,018,000 1,869,000 1,639,800 5,526,800 2,066,692 0 18,419,663 137.4% 8,436,549 2,139,400 1,981,000 1,714,800 5,835,200 2,601,349 2,262,012 18,759,000 144.6% 8,934,993 2,135,200 1,978,200 1,716,800 $0 5,830,200 3,104,793 3,104,793 18,759,000 153.3% 9,970,058 2,265,200 2,100,000 1,818,600 1,532,000 7,715,800 2,254,258 2,254,258 18,759,000 129.2% 10,216,808 2,264,000 2,096,400 1,821,200 1,532,000 7,713,600 2,503,208 2,503,208 18,759,000 132.5% 10,916,576 2,401,600 2,222,200 1,928,400 1,602,000 8,154,200 2,762,376 2,762,376 18,759,000 133.9% 11,158,398 2,402,400 2,227,200 1,931,000 1,604,200 $0 8,164,800 2,993,598 2,993,598 18,759,000 136.7% 11,985,676 2,546,600 2,356,000 2,043,000 1,701,200 585,400 9,232,200 2,753,476 2,753,476 18,759,000 129.8% 12,055,659 2,548,400 2,358,600 2,045,000 1,699,200 585,400 9,236,600 2,819,059 2,819,059 18,759,000 130.5% 13,032,283 2,698,200 2,499,800 2,166,200 1,802,000 615,400 9,781,600 3,250,683 3,250,683 18,759,000 133.2% 12,993,232 2,700,000 2,499,000 2,166,800 1,800,400 $614,200 9,780,400 3,212,832 3,212,832 18,759,000 132.8% 13,974,267 2,859,400 2,651,600 2,296,400 1,908,400 653,000 $0 10,368,800 3,605,467 3,605,467 18,759,000 134.8% 14,013,691 2,860,000 2,651,400 2,299,800 1,911,600 650,200 446,400 10,819,400 3,194,291 3,194,291 18,759,000 129.5% 14,901,731 3,032,800 2,809,200 2,436,800 2,024,000 692,400 451,400 11,446,600 3,455,131 3,455,131 18,759,000 130.2% 14,901,731 3,030,800 2,808,600 2,437,000 2,026,200 692,800 451,200 11,446,600 3,455,131 3,455,131 18,759,000 130.2% 15,795,835 3,215,600 2,975,600 2,580,600 2,147,400 733,000 481,000 12,133,200 3,662,635 3,662,635 18,759,000 130.2% 15,795,835 3,214,600 2,978,400 2,581,800 2,147,800 731,400 479,600 12,133,600 3,662,235 3,662,235 18,759,000 130.2% 16,743,585 3,409,800 3,158,200 2,736,000 2,277,000 774,600 508,200 12,863,800 3,879,785 3,879,785 18,759,000 130.2% 16,743,585 3,408,200 3,157,800 2,737,000 2,274,800 775,800 510,600 12,864,200 3,879,385 3,879,385 18,759,000 130.2% 17,748,200 3,612,200 3,349,000 2,900,600 2,411,200 821,600 542,800 13,637,400 4,110,800 4,110,800 18,759,000 130.1% 17,748,200 3,613,392 3,349,000 2,900,200 2,410,600 825,200 538,600 13,636,992 4,111,208 4,111,208 18,759,000 130.1% 13,831,622 0 3,545,000 3,077,000 2,558,200 873,200 574,400 10,627,800 3,203,822 3,203,822 18,759,000 130.1% 13,831,622 0 3,549,000 3,078,800 2,558,000 873,800 573,600 10,633,200 3,198,422 3,198,422 18,759,000 130.1% 14,661,520 0 3,758,200 3,262,200 2,710,600 923,800 607,600 11,262,400 3,399,120 3,399,120 18,759,000 130.2% 14,661,520 0 3,761,992 3,259,800 2,709,800 926,200 610,000 11,267,792 3,393,728 3,393,728 18,759,000 130.1% 10,355,777 0 0 3,458,600 2,876,400 982,800 642,000 7,959,800 2,395,977 2,395,977 18,759,000 130.1% 10,355,777 0 0 3,455,400 2,873,600 981,400 642,400 7,952,800 2,402,977 2,402,977 18,759,000 130.2% 10,977,124 0 0 3,662,800 3,047,800 1,039,200 682,400 8,432,200 2,544,924 2,544,924 18,759,000 130.2% 10,977,124 0 0 3,666,392 3,046,800 1,038,800 680,400 8,432,392 2,544,732 2,544,732 18,759,000 130.2% 6,581,964 0 0 0 3,227,200 1,102,400 723,000 5,052,600 1,529,364 1,529,364 18,759,000 130.3% 6,581,964 0 0 0 3,231,600 1,102,400 723,400 5,057,400 1,524,564 1,524,564 18,759,000 130.1% 6,976,882 0 0 0 3,421,600 1,166,200 768,200 5,356,000 1,620,882 1,620,882 18,759,000 130.3% 6,976,882 0 0 0 3,424,467 1,166,200 765,600 5,356,267 1,620,615 1,620,615 18,759,000 130.3% 2,674,348 0 0 0 0 1,239,800 812,400 2,052,200 622,148 622,148 18,759,000 130.3% 2,674,348 0 0 0 0 1,239,000 811,600 2,050,600 623,748 623,748 18,759,000 130.4% 2,738,025 0 0 0 0 1,236,600 865,000 2,101,600 636,425 636,425 18,759,000 130.3% 2,738,025 0 0 0 0 1,238,858 860,400 2,099,258 638,766 638,766 18,759,000 130.4% 1,192,443 0 0 0 0 0 915,000 915,000 277,443 277,443 18,759,000 130.3% 1,192,443 916,400 916,400 276,043 276,043 18,759,000 130.1% 1,263,990 971,600 971,600 292,390 292,390 18,759,000 130.1% 1,263,990 968,400 968,400 295,590 295,590 18,759,000 130.5% 1,339,829 1,030,350 1,030,350 309,479 19,068,479 0 130.0% _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 462,285,171 74,405,192 77,445,792 75,458,592 70,498,067 26,881,058 20,553,950 345,242,650 117,042,521 117,042,521 [ DJun2018 23splbD ] [ DJun2018 27splbD ] [ DJun2018 31splbD ] [ DJun2018 35splbD ] [ DJun2018 39splbD ] [ DJun2018 44splbD ] 6/20/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co. Draft: For discussion purposes only. 2 2068 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,124,946 2,738,025 2069 0 0 0 0 1,613,078 1,124,946 2,738,025 2070 0 0 0 0 0 1,192,443 1,192,443 2071 1,192,443 1,192,443 2072 1,263,990 1,263,990 2073 1,263,990 1,263,990 2074 1,339,829 1,339,829 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 99,419,519 103,504,218 101,083,490 94,319,532 36,029,773 27,928,639 462,285,171 6/20/2018 D MMD Fin Plan 18.xlsx D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co. Draft: For discussion purposes only. 1 Tradeoffs x Scenario A - Development of this parcel will increase land consumption, water consumption and energy demand to deliver greater housing variety, affordable housing, and community amenities. Mitigations x Both - The project will be constructed to maximize the use of the land, reduce consumption of water and energy, and delivery enhancements to storm water control and quality Key Alignment: NLSH 1.1: Improve access to quality housing that is affordable to a board range of income levels; NLSH 1.6, Protect and preserve the quality of life in neighborhoods; ENV 4.1: Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals; ENV 4.9 Sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and its watershed; TRAN 6.1: Improve safety for all modes of travel. ATTACHMENT Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: No underline Formatted ... Formatted: No underline Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt Formatted: No underline Formatted ... Formatted: No underline Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single Improvemen ts Building Analysis .................................................... 81 Street Type Assignment Plan................................ 87 Street Sections ......................................................... 88 HF2M Max Moss Jeff Drinkard Sam Drinkard DPZ Galina Tachieva Matthew Lambert Dylan Wassell Heather Wassell Chris Ritter Michael Mabaquiao Michael Huston Martin Serrano BHA Design Bruce Hendee Angela Milewski Existing Conditions ..................................... 1 Regional Context ..................................................... 2 Local Connections................................................... 3 Drainage .................................................................... 4 Property Owners...................................................... 5 Groundwater Depth ................................................. 6 Existing Utilities ..................................................... 7 View To Long’s Peak ............................................... 8 Master Plan................................................... 9 Charrette Round 1 Preliminary Plans .................. 10 Charrette Round 2 Preliminary Plans 12 Final Cha Annotated Neighborhood Structure......................................... 16 Transect Zones......................................................... 17 Private Lots............................................................... 18 Civic and Open Spaces ........................................... 19 Employment and Industrial Districts.................. 20 Affordable Housing Opportunities....................... 21 Master Plan Details...................................... 23 Master Plan Detail................................................... 24 Tactical Town Center Incubator ........................... 26 Town Center 27 Infrastructure............................................... 33 Regional Transportation Improvements............. 34 Transportation System Designations.................. 35 Street Type Assignment Plan................................ 36 Street Sections: Arterials....................................... 37 Street Sections: Collectors..................................... 40 Street Sections: Local ............................................. 42 Street Sections: Special Conditions..................... 46 Low Volume Street Precedents............................. 53 Pedestrian Network ................................................ 54 Parking Facilities .................................................... 55 Bic cle Net ork Facilities ...................... 56 ...................... 57 ...................... 58 Giddings Intersection Studies .............................. 59 Utilities: Front-Loaded Block................................ 60 Utilities: Rear-Loaded Block ................................. 61 Stormwater ............................................................... 62 Building Types ............................................. 63 Transect Zones......................................................... 64 Frontage Types ........................................................ 65 Masterplan Unit Calculations............................... 66 Building Analysis .................................................... 68 CHECK Round RoundPlans 2 Preliminary Plans .....FOR ............ 12 UPDATE arrette Master Plan Plan.................................. 144 d Master Plan .......................................... 155 Bicycle cycleFacilities Network: Facilities............... Bicycle cycleType Network: Cyclist Typ ........ Y-Intersection ntersectionStudies Studies .....................