HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 09/30/2025 - Council Finance Committee Agenda – October 2, 2025Agenda
Council Finance Committee
October 2, 2025 4:00 - 6:00 pm
City Hall - CIC Conf. Room
In person with Remote Participation Available via Teams Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 247 116 340 034
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide advance notice.
Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before.
A)Call Meeting to Order
B)Roll Call
C)Approval of Minutes from the September 4th Meeting
D)DOLA Passenger Rail Grant and Local Match Funding Monica Martinez
15 minutes
E)SE Community Center Update LeAnn Williams
15 minutes
F)Affordable Housing CCIP Request Joe Wimmer
20 minutes Vanessa Fenley
G)Proposed Amendment to the Montava Metro District Josh BIrks
30 minutes
H)Other Business
I)Adjournment
Next Scheduled Committee Meeting: November 6, 2025
Page 1 of 176
Council Finance Committee
2025 Agenda Planning Calendar
Revised 09/17/25 ck
Oct. 2nd 2025
DOLA Passenger Rail Grant and Local Match Funding
Seeking feedback from Council Finance on the use
of 2050 Climate Tax for the local match for the
Front Range Passenger Rail Grant.
15 mins Monica
Martinez
SE Community Center Update
Will revisit the funding stack from February 2025 and
update Council Finance on the current funding stack
options, current schematic design cost and scope.
Will also present a framework for the IGA with Poudre
Libraries.
15 mins
LeAnn Williams
Affordable Housing CCIP Request
Staff will present information on a recent request from
VOA to access $1.4 million from the City’s Affordable
Housing Capital Fund in the CCIP to support a new
age-restricted, income-restricted housing
development (Switchgrass Crossing). CCIP funds
have already been appropriated for the general
purpose of supporting affordable housing
development; this provides an opportunity for Council
Finance to gain additional information on this specific
request prior to this item moving forward to Council.
20 mins
Joe Wimmer
Vanessa
Fenley
Proposed Amendment to the Montava Metro District
Montava developers have requested an amendment
to the existing Metro District service plan for the
project. The amendment would alter the maximum
debt amount and authorize the district to create
special improvement districts. Both changes do not
impact the underlying community benefits agreement
or the project itself.
30 mins Josh Birks
Nov. 6th 2025
Parks and Recreation 2050 Tax Update Jill Wuertz
Page 2 of 176
Dec. 4th 2025
Arts & Culture as Infrastructure: Budgeting for Vibrancy &
Belonging Eileen May
Page 3 of 176
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
nd Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
CIC Room / Teams
September 4, 2025
4:00 - 6:30 pm
Council Attendees: Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Caleb Weitz, Teresa Roche, Karen Burke,
Kelley Vodden
Dianne Criswell, Terri Runyan, Taryn Moran, Jen Poznanovic, Victoria
Shaw, Wendy Bricher, Jo Cech, Carissa Clinton, Alexis Coppello,
Joe Wimmer, Caryn Champine, Monica Martinez, Jeff Rochford, Gerry
Paul, Trevor Nash, Adam Halvorson, Garrison Dam, Lawrence Pollack,
Jill Wuertz, Drew Brooks, Ginny Sawyer, Josh Birks, Mallory Gallegos,
Peggy Streeter, Annabelle Phillips, Jacob Castillo, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Lance Smith
Nancy Salazar Timothy StAndrew, Plante Moran
Josh Yde, Plante Moran
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from August 7, 2025, Council Finance Committee meeting.
Motion made to approve by Emily Francis and seconded by Kelly Ohlson.
Approved via roll call.
A) Audit Update
Trevor Nash, Senior Accounting Manager
Timothy StAndrew, Plante Moran
Josh Yde, Plante Moran
Page 4 of 176
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Kelly Ohlson; thank you for your work -
Mayor Arndt; thank you – see you next year
Page 5 of 176
B) 2026 Budget Revisions
Caleb Weitz, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Jen Poznanovic, Sales Tax & Revenue Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6 Budget before the recommendations are
3. Based on direction
6 Budget Revisions will be combined with the previously adopted 2025-26 Biennial
6 Annual Budget Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for 1st Reading on November 3,
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
- Are there additional considerations Council Finance Committee would like to see prior to presenting the
2026 budget revisions recommendations to the Council on September 23?
- What specific data will be most helpful to present to Council on September 23?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW: The mid-cycle Revision Process is different from the biennial budgeting process in that
there is no broad request for new budget offers. This is because the City is operating within the
approved 2025-26 Biennial Budget, and these revisions should be exceptions based on information not
known at the time the budget was adopted in November 2024. The City Manager and the executive
team conducted a comprehensive review to determine which changes should be forwarded for
Council's consideration. Revised revenue projections and available fund reserves were carefully
considered when making these recommendations.
The 2026 Budget Revisions include both 1) reductions to 2026 ongoing expenses to align them with a
decreased 2026 Sales Tax forecast and unexpectedly low turnover; and 2) additional offers for
consideration. The following are key objectives which the 2026 Budget Revision recommendations are
intended to address:
- Matching appropriations for ongoing expenditures to current ongoing revenue estimates, if
declining
- Council priorities, high-priority projects, and other needs not known at the time of the adoption of
the 2025-26 Budget
- Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance requirements
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: Through most of 2025 there has been significant economic
uncertainty, which continues today. At the national level, impacts from the tariffs will not be known for
many months, while unemployment continues to climb. Inflationary rate increases have slowed to only
2.7% as of July, but the increased costs experienced in many commodities over the past few years has
not subsided. However, consumer confidence has rebounded from earlier this year and there is
anticipation of potential federal reserve rate cuts.
At the state level, unemployment also continues to rise as the State faces at least a $750M budget
shortfall that is being addressed, with local implications. Coloradoans also continue to hold some of the
highest amounts of debt of any state in the nation.
Page 6 of 176
These economic conditions and uncertainty have resulted in lower than forecasted growth in ongoing
Sales Tax collections. Although there are some more recent positive indicators, at this point in time the
City will need to use the 2026 Revision process to right-size the budget from both revenue and expense
adjustments.
REVENUE: Overall, most significant City revenue sources are coming in at, or above, the 2025 budget.
Based on year-to-date actual collections and other information, however, there are 4 areas of revenue
concern: Ongoing Sales Tax (not 1-Time sources like audits), Camera Radar Red Light revenue,
Interest on Investments in the General Fund and the State’s marijuana share back. All of these revenue
sources are recommended to be decreased for 2026.
Sales Tax: Overall, staff anticipates sales tax collections to be under budget and use tax collections to
be over budget, with combined sales and use tax collections to end the year at or near the 2025
budget.
Cumulatively, sales and use tax collections through July are 2.3% over budget driven by strong use tax
collections in the first half of the year. Sales tax is $1.3M under budget and use tax is $4.1M over
budget. Sales and use tax combined is $2.8M over budget. The favorability is largely driven by volatile
one-time revenue for audits, voluntary disclosure agreements and building permit use tax.
For 2026, staff is currently forecasting 2% sales tax growth on 2025 sales tax collections (adjusted for
one-time revenue) or a 4% reduction ($7.1M) from the current 2026 budget. For use tax, staff is
forecasting flat growth from the 2025 budget and recommends keeping the current 2026 budget for use
tax.
Camera Radar Red Light: Delay were experienced with the deployment of the newly, State allowed
transportable speed cameras intended to support Net Vision Zero. This delay along with potentially
higher than expected modifications to driving behavior is anticipated to have up to a $1.5M shortfall
compared to 2026 collections.
Interest on Investments in the General Fund: Due to increased use of reserves over the past few years
and the lack of reserve generation to backfill those reserves, forecasted interest is estimated to be
$800k less than the $2.8M included in the 2026 Budget.
State of Colorado Marijuana Share Back: The State of Colorado is reducing the forecasted share back
by 50%, which is a revenue reduction of $450k.
EXPENSES: Increased budget accuracy since COVID, along with inflationary pressures, has
significantly reduced the amount of unspent budget each year. Although this is good at not letting City
funds sit idle, it does directly impact the availability of reserves. As such, an increased focus on
financial monitoring is necessary.
Since personnel costs are a large portion of the City’s budget, total compensation costs are budgeted at
less than 100% so as to not lock up budget that will go unused, like for position vacancies. So far this
year the City has experienced a sharp decrease in turnover, driven by the City’s employee engagement
strategies, as well as economic concerns and uncertainty. These realities are the main drivers of the
personnel overspend being experienced so far this year, and thus, it is financially prudent to adjust the
2026 Budget to assume a lower level of turnover.
There are also additional budgetary pressures being experienced within Police Services. The most
recent collective bargaining agreement (CBA) increased personnel expenses by nearly $1.0M for sworn
positions. Those increased costs were addressed in 2025 via the use of General Fund reserves, but no
such reserves are anticipated to be available for 2026. Beyond those increased expenses, it has also
been determined that some personnel cost line items were not budgeted correctly and are coming in
over budget. These unavoidable expenses also need to be adjusted in the 2026 Budget.
Financial analysis has also identified other areas of expense pressures, where budgets are expected to
experience overages. For example, there will likely be a need for a supplemental appropriation for
Snow Removal. In a warmer year, with lower snowfalls, such a contingency may not be necessary.
Historically, when increased snow removal costs are necessary, those were covered with General Fund
reserves. However, given the lack of General Fund reserves available for nearly any purpose, it would
Page 7 of 176
also be financially prudent to make an adjustment in the 2026 Budget with anticipated contingency
needs.
~~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to the recommended budget revisions, there are a few other administrative changes for the
2026 Budget, as follows:
1) Modification to 2025-26 Offer 40.7 - Timberline Recycling Center (TRC): With the move of TRC
operations from the Environmental Services Department to the Streets Department now complete,
this revision authorizes transfer of the $1.0M budget in the General Fund to be expended in the
Transportation Fund. There is no change in expenses for the Timberline Recycling Center or the
City
2) As with all other dedicated ¼ cent Sales and Use Taxes, the Open Space Yes! tax will now be
received directly into the Natural Areas Fund, where that revenue is spent. This change eliminates
the need for the transfer from the Sales Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund. Although the total
appropriation goes down, there is no actual change in City expenses.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Adjustments to the 2026 Budget are needed due to both revenue and expense pressures being
experienced in 2025 and expected to continue into the following year. Revenue shortfalls are
anticipated at about $8.7M, the bulk of which are being driven by lower than anticipated ongoing growth
in Sales Tax. On the expense side, 2026 is currently expected to be about $6.7M over budget. Most of
this is being driven by personnel expenses, with the remainder coming from contingent expenses, for
which General Fund reserves are not available to be authorized to cover those expenses.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Not applicable
Discussion / Next Steps;
Mayor Arndt; what makes you think we are going to grow by 2%?
Page 8 of 176
Caleb Weitz; historical trend is about 3% per year – we are being conservative forecasting under that. It
was a good data point that other front range communities are also using 2% for forecasting. As Jen
mentioned, with the use tax, there is always some potential for upside and coming in above budget.
Mayor Arndt; can you talk more about the state – was that done in a special session?
Page 9 of 176
Caleb Weitz; we get a portion of marijuana tax back from the state and they are reducing the share back
portion by about 50% - instead of $1M – we will get approximately $500K. It was not in a special session
because we have known about it since early in the summer.
Tyler Marr; it was a JBC (Joint Budget Committee) decision.
Mayor Arndt; photo traffic enforcement – the human behavior aspect of that - the drop off in the number of
tickets and the changed behavior happened a lot faster than we anticipated.
Lawrence Pollack; I don’t know if we have enough data points since citations just started in June.
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; for the work session, could we get more detail on the camera radar; how much we got and
when – a little more meat on the bone. I trust it – I just want to see it. The red light and speed cameras
were mentioned at separate times and are different things – clarify the difference between the speed and
red light programs for the work session.
Caleb Weitz; the entire photo enforcement program is budgeted for $5M revenue per year. Due to the
delay and other issues, we are now forecasting $3.5M to materialize. Red light cameras are on track. It is
quite an open question as to what that will look like going into the future.
Kelly Ohlson; it is real money and is an important project for the council and right on the money.
Kelly Ohlson; I am a big audit fan – if I pay my taxes everyone else should too. What is a voluntary
disclosure agreement?
Jen Poznanovic; when a business voluntarily comes forward and says, we have been collecting tax but not
submitting. Economic nexus, a business that is an online retailer and they owe us tax.
When they come forward, we usually waive the penalty but not the interest.
Page 10 of 176
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; for the work session, I would like to see what positions were paused and frozen.
Every vacancy is frozen.
Kelly DiMartino; I would say that every governmental funded position is frozen. We do have positions that
are still being filled as they are fully funded by Utilities, Connexion or Natural Areas (not drawing on
governmental funds).
Page 11 of 176
Mayor Arndt; for the benefit of any residents watching, what is a benefits holiday?
Caleb Weitz; we have a central benefits fund here in the city, that pays for health insurance for employees.
There is a budgeted amount in each department that pays the employer’s costs of the benefits.
Page 12 of 176
Employees also pay via payroll deduction - skipping payment from the employer and employee sides
We have had strong performance in the benefits fund due to the good work of Teresa Roche and her team,
as well as some program design changes. The benefits holiday is taking one pay period and skipping the
payments both from the employer and employee sides. No interruption or change to benefit but this allows
us to take advantage of the balance in the benefits fund.
Kelly Ohlson; slide 22 (see above)
Sales tax auditor is a recommended addition – it is not on the list above, but is included in the packet
materials. Is it 1 or 2 code compliance resources? I need to see a clean slide
Caleb Weitz; the sales tax auditor position is an add not a reduction – that is a revenue generating position
Lawrence Pollack; since materials were published and as a result of conversations with staff, there was a
shifting of a position due to funding and a reduction. So this will go to 25. We will provide the detail you
requested for the work session.
Page 13 of 176
Kelly Ohlson; (slide 20 – see above) what do cuts to service mean? I understand that will be flushed out in
the work session materials as well. So, the 1% reduction in pay increases from 3-2 % will save us $1.2M.
Lawrence Pollack; there are two benefits solutions and both save us $.5M each.
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; for the work session, can you give us an estimate on how much the benefits holiday will
benefit staff as opposed to the pay increase reduction?
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson;; from slide 21 (see above)
Sustainability – 6.8% cut - Can you translate this into detail for us for the work session?
Also, some of fought for years to get certain positions funded – I want to make sure those are not part of
this list. I hope we are careful the next time we negotiate next police contract.
Emily Francis; why are Transfort and the Grocery tax Rebate in that amount?
Caleb Weitz; in looking at the general fund, the reason it was not included in the deficit specifically, is
because we have recommended solutions for those; for grocery tax, using an assigned reserve in the
general fund that is available and for Transfort using a non general fund funding source.
Page 14 of 176
Emily Francis; on slide 19 (see above) it says $3.7M for program and service reductions and on the next
slide is says $10.4M
Caleb Weitz; between slides 18 and 19 there is a categorization way to slice and dice the reductions
It is the same list but if is categorized in a different way. There is $10.4M of service area initiated
reductions.
Lawrence Pollack; the service area reductions came from the 6% reduction ideas that were requested by
the City Manager – the $10.4 includes citywide type actions to help balance the budget but weren’t
necessarily part of the 6% reductions submitted by the service areas.
Kelly DiMartino; we need to cross walk the slides differently for clarity.
ACTION ITEM:
Emily Francis; I know you said that the police budget is 80% personnel. Can you also provide that
percentage for the other service areas?
Emily Francis; I am also concerned about sustainability reductions. We have increased their workload
significantly over the last six years due to council priorities.
Kelly DiMartino; huge thank you to all teams
Kelly Ohlson; great work and very well presented
Page 15 of 176
C) Transfort Budget
Monica Martinez, PDT Finance Manager
Kaley Zeisel, Director, Transfort
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-pandemic Transit industry has experienced unprecedented levels of cost increases resulting in
-70% across the industry for 2025. Transfort is experiencing
ases across the three largest segments of its budget:
eviously allocated General Fund support of the Transit Fund. As a result, Transfort is now seeking
fied 2050 Tax Transit as the
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends use of 2025 Tax to meet identified Transit needs for 2025 & 2026
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The post-pandemic transit industry has experienced ongoing and significant cost pressures that have
resulted in an estimated increase of 50% - 70% in 2025 operating expenses across the industry. In
some cases, transit agencies have chosen to decrease service areas while simultaneously
experiencing continued increases to both operational costs and per/passenger costs. The table below,
which uses 2023 data, is illustrative of these trends that have continued through 2025. The peer cities
selected for this comparison represent a select group that demonstrated strong ridership and post-
pandemic recovery.
Transfort is facing similar cost pressures and has identified the need for additional funding at current
service levels. Currently, Transfort is not running at full-service levels as defined by pre-pandemic
expectations. While the original intent was to return to 2019 service levels, Transfort has proactively
paused returns to service in reaction to both internal and external financial pressures. Transfort
anticipates maintaining current service levels for the short-term with the only planned addition being a
return to Sunday & Holiday service. This is planned for 2026 and is in response to strong community
support for this specific service return. Due to the City’s current fiscal position, the 2050 Tax Transit has
been identified as the available funding source to meet Transfort’s financial needs.
Page 16 of 176
2050 Tax Transit
Staff recognizes the importance of ensuring that all 2050 Tax Transit is expended per ballot language
for infrastructure improvements, equipment purchases & upgraded and expanded services. An
additional concern is the use of 2050 Tax Transit to supplement and not supplant prior General Fund
support. To that end, the General Fund level of support in 2023 of $11.5M to the Transit Fund has been
established as the base level at which General Fund must continue in order to be in compliance with
2050 Tax Transit. Staff recommends use of the 2050 Tax Transit for those items outlined in ballot
language with the outcome of short-term maintenance of current service levels. This is a short-term fix
awaiting further discussion and decision guided by Transfort’s Optimization Study. The table in the “City
Financial Impacts “ section outlines the recommendation of staff for the 2025 and 2026 years and
highlights the anticipated remaining amount balance of the 2050 Transit Tax at the end of 2026.
Transfort Revenue & Expense Context
At current 2025 service levels, Transfort’s revenue budget is projected to $22.2M while its expense
budget is projected to $25M. This represents a $2.2M dollar shortfall in terms of revenue vs expense.
This shortfall is compounded by the unavailability of $.6M in General Fund dollars. The expense
overruns will be individually discussed in the subsequent section.
Since 2019, Transfort has seen a 27% increase in its revenue sources. Most of this increase has come
from the General Fund which has grown its support by 33%. Notably, during the same period, federal
operational grant amounts increased by only 19%. Contractual funding sources have seen increases,
however, they are overall a smaller percentage of the budget. Thus, support of the transit system has
shifted away from federal funds and onto local sources.
On the expense side, the budget is projected to end 2025 with a growth of approximately 44% while
maintaining reduced service levels. At full service, it is estimated that total expenses would demonstrate
a growth rate of around 46%. While there have been increased costs in all areas, the key areas of
unprecedented increases for Transfort are personnel, vehicle repair services, & contracted services
with growth ranging from 33% - 94% over the period.
2025 Transfort Projected Overspend
The anticipated overspend for Transfort is driven by four main factors: personnel, vehicle repair
services, contracted transportation services, & a reduction in General Fund support. The reduction in
General Fund support is Transfort’s contribution to 2025 citywide reductions of 5% as a result of
unavailable General Fund allocations.
As compared to the original budget of $13.5M and at current service levels, Transfort personnel is
projecting to an overspend of approximately $700k. This overspend is largely due to an unrealized
assumed vacancy factor. The 2025 assumed vacancy factor for Transfort has proven to be both overly
aggressive in current conditions and potentially misaligned with the operational demands of a transit
service. Overall growth in personnel costs is due to industry dictated increases in wages and is also a
product of the City’s merit increases. A personnel budget of roughly $13.5M that is assigned a merit
increase of 4% will result in over $500k in increases per year.
Overspend in vehicle repair services is projected to an overspend of just over $400k. Analysis of
Transfort’s actual vs projected spend identified that the service levels being used for cost calculations
were being partially driven by a post pandemic low in 2022. This has been addressed for future cost
estimates. Overall growth in vehicle repair services is due to a 33% increase in the hourly cost of a
technician and an average cost increase of 34% form the most commonly used parts.
Contracted Transportation Services includes Dial-A-Ride, bus-stop-to-bus-stop, and some fixed route
services. At current service levels, an overspend of $1.1M is projected. Approximately, $300k of the
overspend is driven by the ongoing use of bus-stop-to-bus-stop services employed to mitigate
continued pandemic era route stoppages. As of 2025 budget reduction conversations, these services
are being reduced by 50%. Additional cost pressures include a substantial increase in ridership for Dial-
A-Ride and a one-time contractual increase of 15%. Yearly contracted increases of 3% are anticipated
going forward. Notably, Transfort is unable to dictate Dial-A-Ride ridership as it is a federally mandated
Page 17 of 176
service contingent on a ¾ mile radius of the current service area. A small portion of 2025’s large
overspend is due to recently identified year end accounting timing.
As previously noted, Transfort is also requesting $.6M in 2050 Tax Transit to replace unavailable
General Fund support. The total request for 2025 is $2.8M.
2026 Transfort Projected Overspend
For 2026, Transfort is requesting an additional amount of $3.2M from the 2050 Tax Transit via the
budget revision process. This request is driven by an anticipated overspend of $.9M in personnel, $.64
in vehicle repair services, $.97M in contracted transportation services, and a backfill of $.77 due to the
unavailability of previously allocated General Fund amounts.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Staff recommends additional appropriations of $2.8M in 2025 & $3.2M in 2026 to meet identified
Transfort needs.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Mayor Arndt; did you bring back advertising?
Kaley Zeisel; yes, they did bring back advertising on buses - revenue
$2.2M additional funding needed
Kelly Ohlson; do we use a vendor for techs or do we use our own people?
Monica Martinez; those are our techs – that is what we get invoiced as if it were a contracted service.
Page 18 of 176
Contracted services include; Bus stop to bus stop, Dial A Ride which is a federally mandated program
Tight balance on the Transit Tax – 2026 - use 2050 tax to fill needs
Kelly Ohlson; could not want for more information. It seems legit and is well presented.
2050 tax – was $11.5M – even in tight budget times, we are not supposed to dip into that.
Have it clear so that future councils and managers realize that you can’t just dip into that.
Built in - inflation alone – $11.5 won’t mean as much unless you add CPI to honor the Council direction and
what the voters voted on - just with inflation alone over a 25 year period – a very long period of time – to
honor the language – build that in – to honor the intent
Kelly DiMartino; let me take that as a follow-up - how we might memorialize that – ballot language should
match the intent
Caleb Weitz; certainly, the 2023 base year amount is very clear and understanding the intent in the
conversation around the 2050 tax incrementally increase the funding for transit in conjunction with this
request
Kelly Ohlson; I am really nervous due to the length of the tax – eating away as the $11.5M starting point
Kelly DiMartino; we are for sure going to be true to the legal requirement – no question about that. We are
working closely with legal to make sure. Here is the intent of that – I think about how we document that.
Prevent future councils from having the flexibility. We do have some follow up to do based on this
conversation
Kelly Ohlson; after I leave Council, I will still be very interested in future ballot language so these type of
things do not happen. That we stay with the intent. The language should match the intent.
Mayor Arndt; the reduction was out of our control when Loveland pulled back. Look at the share that CSU
gives - that could go away too. When other budgets tighten up – they are going to be looking at some of
these shared services. Just an observation I am making, I think some of it will come down to
communication to the public. We have to stick to both the good and bad side of TABOR.
We will be paying for things that look like extras when it looks like some of our core funding is shrinking.
Kelly Ohlson; fix systematically, it is not going to kill the city. 2.5% inflation but over the 25 years, that spits
in the face of the intent of what we said.
Mayor Arndt; we could be in some kind of pickle
Page 19 of 176
D) Grocery Tax Rebate Program
Adam Molzer, Manager, Sustainability Services Area
Jacob Castillo, CSO, Sustainability Services Area
Jeff Rochford, Manager, FP&A, Connexion
The Grocery Tax Rebate program’s 2025 budget affords $450,000 for rebates to qualified residents. Due
to increased participation in the program, the total rebate payouts in 2025 are anticipated to be nearly
-Up and would fulfill the budget necessary to meet
onstrain spending in 2026 and beyond will be
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Are there other considerations Council Finance Committee would like to see prior to using the Digital
Inclusion reserve balance to make the Grocery Tax Rebate program budget whole in 2025?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee have feedback or considerations for modifying the Grocery Tax
Rebate program design in 2026 to remain in budget?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Program Details:
Established in 1984, the Grocery Tax Rebate is intended to provide financially insecure residents relief
from City sales tax charged on purchased food. The rebate amount is currently $80 per person,
annually.
Grocery Tax Rebate qualifications include:
• Resident inside the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA).
• Household income between 0-60% of Area Median Income (AMI).
• Must have a document that aligns the applicant’s identity with a Fort Collins address.
Applications are submitted via the Get FoCo online platform, where staff manually review each
application and the uploaded documentation (EBT card copy, Medicaid card, LEAP letter,
Free/Reduced Lunch letter) to verify income and residency eligibility. This is the fourth year partnering
with Get FoCo and 100% of applications are now received via the web platform.
One 0.75-FTE staff member assists residents with the application process, manually uploads payment
data, and supports a variety of other program functions to ensure a positive customer experience.
Program Growth:
Year Applications Household
Members
Grocery
Rebate
Budget
Allowance Repeat %65+%Single
HH %GetFoco %
2020 1006 1890 $123,435 $138,000 886 88%509 51%641 64%N/A N/A
2021 948 1758 $117,987 $138,000 844 89%446 47%588 62%N/A N/A
2022 1281 2626 $181,186 $138,000 857 67%486 38%686 54%614 48%
2023 1966 4654 $354,121 $150,000 866 44%453 23%911 46%1572 80%
2024 3150 7227 $578,240 $165,000 1351 43%597 19%713 23%3093 98%
YTD 2025 - July 2160 5489 $439,000 $450,000 1357 63%288 13%906 42%2160 100%
* Rebate amounts above are tabulated by application receipt date, resulting in slight variations from the City's fiscal year due to timing.
Page 20 of 176
Between 2020-2024, the number of applications received increased over 213%, and rebates issued
grew by 368%.
In 2024, the City processed 3,150 applications. The total amount issued in 2024 for the grocery rebate
program was $578,240. The FY2024 budget afforded $165,000 for rebates, and a one-time
appropriation from the general fund in September 2024 made the budget whole for the year.
From January to July 2025, the City has processed 2,160 applications. The total amount issued year-
to-date (end of July) in 2025 is $439,000. The FY2025 budget affords $450,000 for rebates.
Using the year-over-year growth rate of 33% currently realized in the first 7-months of 2025, then
applied to the actual rebate payments realized for August-December 2024 ($250,000), an anticipated
$331,000 is necessary for August-December 2025. With approximately $11,000 remaining in the
budget, an appropriation of $320,000 is necessary to meet the 2025 rebate obligations.
Actual & Anticipated Obligation & Budget
Estimated Funding Needed $320,000
To meet this funding need in 2025, utilizing the Digital Inclusion reserve is the preferred option due to
scope alignment, immediate availability of funds and limited impacts to residents receiving grocery tax
rebates. Other options considered were to modify or suspend the rebate program mid-year, or to
secure other General Fund dollars.
Since inception, the balance of the Digital Inclusion reserve has grown over time due to the rapid
growth of Connexion’s Internet revenue. This revenue funds the reserve through a 6% payment-in-lieu-
of-taxes or PILOT, and at year-end 2024 the reserve reached a balance of $1.017M. The PILOT funds
Digital Inclusion activites including staff salaries, grants to local schools for hardware and education to
improve digital literacy, as well as funding the Get FoCo app’s software maintenance and support
costs. Additionally, the PILOT funds a reimbursement back to Connexion to offset a discount to
qualified customers who receive a $50 reduction in the price of their internet service (1GB, normally
$70/month, for $20/month).
While there exists a postive and expanding balance in the reserve, current projections show, due to the
relatively rapid growth in Connexion’s Digital Equity customers, an expected decline in reserves
sometime in 2027 or 2028 with an expection of depletion sometime in 2030 or 2031 at which point
Connexion was expecting to self-fund new Digital Equity discounts.The consquence of utilizing Digital
Inclusion reserve balance in 2025 will be to advance those timelines.
Program Scaling for 2026:
To achieve a balanced budget in 2026, a combination of program modifications will be necessary to
scale rebate obligations downward to remain within the existing budget of $450,000. Each option
provides variable budget savings based on the number of eligible applicants that may apply and the
size of households.
At the current rebate amount of $80 per person, the rebate program can support 5,625 eligible Fort
Collins residents. In 2024 and 2025, this number was eclipsed each year in August or September,
requiring the need for additional funding appropriations.
To remain within the 2026 budget of $450,000 and support the heightened number of households
applying for a grocery tax rebate, the following options could be implemented:
Modification A – Reduced Per Person Rebate Amount
Page 21 of 176
Current State: Rebate amount is $80 per person, annually.
Recalculated annually using Consumer Price Index growth over 2019 baseline ($65).
Modified State: Reset the rebate amount to the 2019 baseline of $65 (or lower).
Trade-Offs: $15 per person reduction.
In Q1 + Q2 (2025), this modification alone would have reduced rebates by $73,100.
Equity considerations for disproportionately impacted communities.
Code change required.
Modification B – Reduced Household Member Maximum
Current State: Households with up to 8 eligible members may receive the $80 rebate per person.
This may provide a household up to $640 in rebate.
In 2005, the number of eligible household members increased from 4 to 8.
Modified State: Lower the maximum household rebate ceiling to 3 members.
The average household size in Fort Collins is 2.27 people.
The average household size of rebate applicants in Q1 + Q2 (2025) was 2.5.
Trade-Offs: Households with 4+ members would only receive the 3 member maximum rebate.
In Q1 + Q2 (2025), this modification alone would have reduced rebates by $81,000.
Equity considerations for disproportionately impacted communities.
Code change required.
Modification C – Remove Growth Management Area (GMA) from Eligibility
Current State: Eligible applicants with proof of address within the GMA qualify for a rebate.
In 2017, a Code change expanded rebates eligibility to residents in the GMA.
Modified State: Reverse 2017 Code change and disallow GMA residents from rebate eligibility.
Trade-Offs: Further analysis is needed to determine estimated rebate savings.
Equity considerations for mobile home park residents in the GMA.
Code change required.
Modification D – Suspend Program When Budget is Exhausted
Current State: Get FoCo allows unlimited number of eligible households to apply throughout the year.
Rebates are provided to all eligible residents that apply.
Rebates began exceeding budget in 2022.
Modified State: Suspend Grocery Tax Rebate option in Get FoCo when $450,000 budget is met.
Trade-Offs: May create an application surge if the community believes there is a scarcity of funding.
Administrative staff would be reassigned new work during suspended period.
Residents lose access to this financial assistance at an undetermined date each year.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
$320,000 appropriation from the Digital Inclusion reserve balance for the Grocery Tax Rebate program
(November 2025 Clean-Up Ordinance).
Funding from the Digital Inclusion reserve will reduce the balance of the reserve by approximately 30%.
Consequentially the ability of the reserve to fund ongoing Digital Inclusion efforts and reimbursement to
Connexion of Digital Equity customer discounts will be reduced, advancing the timeline of when the
reserve was projected to be depleted naturally through the continued growth in Connexion Digital
Equity customers.
Page 22 of 176
Scaling the program design in 2026 to remain within the approved $450,000 budget will remove the
need for additional appropriation requests of new funding.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach has not been conducted for the budget appropriation, nor the potential program
modifications needed to scale expenses to remain in budget.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Options;
• Look at a reduced benefit - down from $80 to $60 or $65 per house
• Current family members up to 8 - reduce that to 3 -4 or more – you are only going to get the 3
person benefit
• Removing the GMA from eligibility - currently city limits and GMA - prior to 2017 it was just the city
limits – did not include the GMA
Mayor Arndt; my world view – residents don’t ask for a rebate on food unless they need it.
I would be very reticent to cut the program.
Kelly DiMartino; I don’t mean to minimize the need for this program in any way. I want to be clear that
people are not asking for it, they are being auto enrolled with the Get FoCo app. That is a huge change -
automatic enrollment. Before Get FoCo, we were never actually able to spend the budgeted amount.
To council’s credit, one of your priorities was around removing barriers and Get FoCo has been a huge win
in that area.
Mayor Arndt; so, after you qualify (60% AMI or less), what else does Get FoCo offer?
Adam Molzer; Get FoCo is housed in our equity office – grocery tax rebate is the lowest barrier –
automatically checked that box, then you can select recreation pass
Jacob Castillo; Get Foco is a selling point for folks in the community getting on Connexion - more people
signing up. Awareness has skyrocketed.
Emily Francis; how is this program funded?
Caleb Weitz; it is a general fund planned expenditure. We give back approximately 6% of the grocery
taxes we collect.
Emily Francis; if we thought – 6%
Caleb Weitz; we are on track to rebate approximately 6% of grocery sales taxes this year.
We were budgeted at a much lower amount. Before Get FoCo, we had trouble spending the $100K
budget.
Emily Francis; why did we expand it to the GMA in 2017?
Jacob Castillo; my hunch is that they are purchasing their groceries in the city of Fort Collins.
Emily Francis; Connexion - are we forecasting that the pilot would end in 2030?
Jeff Rochford; 6% funding is currently $108K per month and is growing over time
Page 23 of 176
Expecting at least on an incremental basis- funded through the pilot.
New digital equity customers that we would self-fund.
Any impact is significant over a long time frame.
Emily Francis; I am still not clear on the impact to digital equity. If we did the grocery tax rebate and it
moves the timeline – what would the impact be to people receiving this?
Caleb Weitz; the impact – there would be decisions to be made about finding other funding sources
supplement Connexion, that decision point for how to address digital customers would be moved up by a
year or two. We don’t know the policy outcome would be yet, because we haven’t discussed this with
Council.
Kelly DiMartino; with Connexion, we are always slightly on the edge with the competitive piece – Executive
Session with Council - we will build in conversation around this.
Emily Francis; Is this scheduled to go directly to council or to a work session? I would feel more
comfortable with understanding what Connexion’s plan would be.
Kelly DiMartino; it is currently scheduled to go directly to Council unless you feel you want a work session.
Jeff Rochford; there will be tradeoffs - we can change pricing – we can slow down the rate of capital
development
Tyler Marr; there would not be a management decision to remove the Get FoCo
Challenges & tools to address in terms of other funding sources – management decision
Emily Francis; I don’t know what the impact to Connexion but what are those tradeoffs?
Mayor Arndt; what percent goes to the GMA? Is there any verification that they are shopping in the city?
Jeff Rochford; we haven’t been able to map that out.
Kelly DiMartino; a wide variety of things including reduced rate Connexion, E bikes and scooters,
reduced fee for recreation programs, Grocery tax rebate
Kelly Ohlson; moving parts Programs – equity office is over the Get FoCo program?
Jacob Castillo; the grocery tax rebate program is within social sustainability. The Get FoCo app- the larger
umbrella in the equity office
Kelly Ohlson; I think it is important that we keep 94% of taxes collected on groceries and not eliminate that
like other front range communities have. How is the 60% AMI arrived at for this particular program?
Jacob Castilllo; there are a lot of programs that use that as the threshold - and that is a dial we can turn on
this – it could be 30% -
Kelly Ohlson; I am open to removing the GMA from eligibility and to reducing the per person rebate - $80 –
where did that amount comes from?
Page 24 of 176
Adam Molzer; the $80 is recalculated annually and is based on a number that was established in 2019
which was $65 – there is a CPI index year over year growth rate that has ratcheted that up.
Emily Francis; how much are we looking to reduce the program in 2026?
Adam Molzer; $320K in 2025 - a bigger swing at programmatic options.
Kelly DiMartino; we do anticipate that it will continue to grow. There are two separate questions; a 2025
question and a 2026 question. I think we feel confident that using this one-time funding from the Digital
Equity Reserve for 2025. Also, the recent infusion of the Open dollars coming back in.
2026 is the bigger question as we will have longer term policy tradeoffs. We may want to come back with
another work session – vetting around the options that are conceptual at this time.
Kelly Ohlson; I am fine w/recommendation #1 especially with the infusion of the settlement.
How do we know if someone has 8 household members?
Adam Molzer; the data is taken from their qualifying EBT card or free lunch information
Kelly Ohlson; long term – it should be general fund – but that doesn’t work for 2026
We finally got it right. The key was accessibility to the program, and it is a success now. We have to deal
with the success of the program. A basic thing – a good program.
Mayor Arndt; one of the last programs I would reduce or cut and that also goes for the digital equity
program. I don’t think people ask for grocery rebates unless they need it. The other consideration is the
GMA but I don’t want to take it away from folks.
Page 25 of 176
Kelly Ohlson; (see slides 9 and 10 above) Modifications A & D are off for me.
Jacob Castillo; I would like to make sure we are clear on the 2025 solution.
As Kelly DiMartino said, I think we have something that gets us through the end of the year.
We can come back with more detail if necessary. And for 2026, this may not be just one option but there
may be multiple dials that need to be ratcheted and calibrated to the 2026 budget. We can do the math to
get to a balanced set of options that live within our means. We are committed to staying within the 2026
budget amount of $450K.
Emily Francis; is it possible to backfill the Connexion pilot with the Open funds?
Jeff Rochford; defacto yes, if you think of it from a Connexion point of view, the worst scenario - magnitude
– we would rather not have that challenge and we are in phase where we need external financing and
we don’t want to come back - we want to stick to our plan, beat our plan.
ACTION ITEM:
Emily Francis; I would like a plan to be presented at the next Connexion update. I don’t think we have a
plan for 2026, and this amount needs to be included in the deficit problem and looked at more holistically. I
would rather have this added and we problem solve for this.
Kelly DiMartino; we will include that
Mayor Arndt; I think what you are hearing here is that we don’t want to adjust the program. Scale it to meet
the demand and adjust other things.
Emily Francis; I am curious if we would offer a smaller amount for children under a certain age. I don’t think
we should shrink the program.
Page 26 of 176
Caleb Weitz; summary
Consensus from the committee on the 2025 question
Committee is not interested in significant program design changes heading into 2026.
So, some options to look at – how that forecasted dollar amount could be addressed in the 2026
budget.
What we are bringing as resolutions for the 2026 General Fund- $11M in recurring reductions so it
possible there are one-time solutions. As this program grows, there will be budgetary pressures
that we will need to address in a future budget process. What our full 2-year budget proposal will
look like.
Kelly Ohlson; we would be open if you brought reasons for eliminating the GMA -
If the dollar figure is legitimate – we don’t want to reduce it. I would be open to update household members
- children versus adults – economies of scale – potential tweaking there - Amount, household size and
GMA. Further evaluation
Mayor Arndt; come back with 2026 program.
E) 2025 Annual Adjustment Ordinances
Caleb Weitz, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No., 2025, Making Supplemental Appropriations in Various City
Funds.
The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to combine dedicated and unanticipated
revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related
expenses that were not anticipated and therefore not included in the 2025 annual budget appropriation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2025 Annual
Adjustment Ordinances?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2025 Annual
Adjustment Ordinances to the full City Council on the Consent Agenda?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Page 27 of 176
These Ordinances appropriate unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves in various City funds and
authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds and/or projects. The City Charter
permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee
increases or new revenue sources, such as grants and reimbursements. The City Charter also permits
the City Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves.
Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one
fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the
transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they were initially
appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which
the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the
appropriation ordinance.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though
revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested
appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds and/or projects which do not increase net
appropriations, but per the City Charter, require City Council approval to make the transfer. A table with
the specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the AIS.
Funding Additional
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves Transfers TOTAL
General Fund $811,080 $370,329 $0 $1,181,409
Cultural Services Fund 711,000 0 0 711,000
Recreation Fund 450,000 0 0 450,000
Transportation Services Fund 140,000 0 115,000 255,000
Self-Insurance Fund 653,461 0 0 653,461
Utility CS&A Fund 0 543,582 0 543,582
Light & Power Fund 2,009,443 0 0 2,009,443
Water Fund 352,958 0 0 352,958
Wastewater Fund 106,479 0 0 106,479
Stormwater Fund 51,479 0 0 51,479
Golf Fund 550,000 374,600 0 924,600
GRAND TOTAL $5,835,900 $1,288,511 $115,000 $7,239,411
A. GENERAL FUND
1. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources. A listing of
these items follows:
a. $7,590 – Police Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce: As a part of the City of Fort Collins
contribution to the Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce, any Drug Offender Surcharge or
Court Ordered Restitution that is remitted from Larimer County Court to Fort Collins
Police, is then passed along to the NCDTF. Any additional restitution that is collected by
FCPS is additionally passed along to the NCDTF.
b. $3,000 – Police 2024/2025 HVE Grant: Police Services was awarded a grant from Law
Enforcement Assistance Fund to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement. There was a
$3,000 amendment to the original grant.
Page 28 of 176
c. $95,443 – Police Miscellaneous Revenue: Police Services receives revenue from the
sale of Police reports along with other miscellaneous revenue, like restitution payments,
evidence revenue and SWAT training.
d. $468,863 – Police Reimbursable Overtime: Police Services help schedule security and
traffic control for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers outside of their
normal duties, officers are paid overtime. The organization who requested officer
presence is then billed for the costs of the officers' overtime. For example, FCPS
partners with Larimer County to staff events at The Ranch. Police receive reimbursement
from Larimer County for officers’ hours worked at Ranch events.
e. $120,498 – Police School Resource Officers: Police Services has a contract with Poudre
School District to provide Officers on location at a majority of the schools for safety and
support. The school district pays Police Services based on a predetermined contract
amount and also partially reimbursing for overtime incurred. This request is for the
previously billed overtime and anticipated overtime for the remaining year.
f. $4,978 – Police DUI Enforcement: Proceeds that have been received for DUI
enforcement.
TOTAL: $700,372
2. Forestry Payment In Lieu
The Forestry Division receives Payment in Lieu (PIL) revenue when a developer cannot plant
enough trees on a development site to meet City requirements. These funds are used to
support planting trees elsewhere in the City.
FROM: Unanticipated PIL Revenue
$21,750
FOR: Citywide Tree Planting
$21,750
3. Parks- Overland Park Unanticipated Revenue
The Parks Department collected higher than anticipated revenues from rental facilities at the
Overland Park complex. The funds are used to support general operations in the Overland Park.
Page 29 of 176
FROM: Unanticipated rental revenue
$10,575
FOR: Overland Park
$10,575
4. Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax
Finance requests the appropriation of $28,329 to cover the amount due for the 2024
Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate program as established in Chapter 25, Article II,
Division 5, of the Municipal Code. The rebate program was established to encourage investment
in new manufacturing equipment by local manufacturing firms. This item appropriates the use
tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Rebate reserve
$28,329
within the General Fund)
FOR: Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax
$28,329
5. Fort Collins Retail Strategy funded by PRPA
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) annually contributes to the economic health of the Fort
Collins community. In the past, the City has utilized these funds to support local, small
businesses and continue to utilize these funds in this manner. This year, the funds were utilized
to support a citywide retail study to understand the changing landscape of retail, implications to
our sales tax base, and development of Council Priority #4 - Advance a 15-Min City by Igniting
Neighborhood Centers.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (PRPA)
$52,500
FOR: Citywide retail study
$52,500
6. Radon Kits
Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung-cancer
risk from in-home radon exposure. This appropriation recovers kit sales revenue for the
purpose of restocking radon test kits annually.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (radon kit sales) $1,403
FOR: Purchase of radon kits to sell $1,403
7. Conflict Transformation Works Program - Revenue Recovery
Conflict Transformation Works (CTW), which includes restorative justice and community
mediation programs, receives payment for work it does for other City departments through its
workplace mediation program and also has program fees for parts of its programming. In
addition, this year CTW contracted with another community in Washington to train on the
Restore model, a restorative justice model for shoplifting offenses which was designed and
implemented here in Fort Collins. CTW would like to appropriate these funds to use for
expenses related to volunteer training, support and appreciation. Also, a small portion of the
funding will be used to pay victim restitution for victims of restorative justice cases in the CTW
programs. Youth in the program do volunteer work to earn the victim restitution. This is provided
for families unable to pay the restitution their youth owes and for youth too young or otherwise
Page 30 of 176
unable to do paid work for the restitution. This assures the victim receives restitution despite a
family's inability to pay. Program staff cannot predict how many youths will request this support
and who will qualify.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (CTW)
$16,680
FOR: Conflict Transformations Works Program
$16,680
8. Grocery Rebate Program Participation
The Grocery Tax Rebate is intended to provide financially insecure residents relief from City
sales tax charged on purchased food. The rebate amount is currently $80 per person. From
January to July 2025, the City processed 2,160 applications. The total amount issued during this
period is $439,000; a 33% increase year-over-year from 2024. The FY2025 budget affords
$450,000 for rebates, leaving $11,000 for the remainder of 2025.
A monthly average of $66,200 for August-December 2025 is anticipated, bringing the total
rebate obligation for 2025 to $770,000. Additional appropriation to cover the gap of $320,000
will come from General Fund sub-reserves from Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) and will
meet the anticipated 2025 grocery rebate obligations.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (PILOT) $320,000
FOR: Grocery rebates for financially insecure residents
$320,000
9. Land Bank Operating Expenses
This request is intended to cover expenses related to the land bank property operation costs for
2025. Since expenses vary from year to year, funding is requested annually through the Annual
Adjustment process to cover these costs. Expenses in 2025 include general maintenance of
properties, raw water and sewer expenses, electricity, repairs, pest control, and other as
applicable.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank)
$22,000
FOR: Land Bank Operational Expenses
$22,000
10. Volunteer Services Hourly Personnel Support
This is a request to appropriate $7,800 in unanticipated revenue collected from NextGenServe
Volunteer services to fund hourly employees that support the Volunteer Services programs.
NextGenServe is the City’s teen volunteer service club run out of HR and funded from the
Volunteer Service Program budget. NextGen is in its fifth year and has been grant-supported
thus far. To move to a more sustainable funding model, Volunteer Services launched a fee-
based program in 2025. Each participant was required to pay $200 unless they accessed our
scholarship program through GetFoCo. With 43 participants, the program generated $7,800 in
unanticipated revenue to help support Volunteer services hourly personnel.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from NextGenServe $7,800
FOR: Fund hourly employees that support Volunteer Services $7,800
Page 31 of 176
B. CULTURAL SERVICES FUND
1. Lincoln Center Artists & Musicians Fees
The Lincoln Center is requesting additional budget for the expenses related to LC live show
promoters and artists to accommodate higher than expected revenues and expenditures for
additional productions, as well as national and international tour shows presented or produced
by the City. This appropriation has no net impact on the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund
and requires no subsidy from the General Fund.
In 2025, the Lincoln Center brought major touring shows to Fort Collins, including Dear Evan
Hansen, Mean Girls, and Ain’t Too Proud. In addition, since the adoption of the 2025 budget, we
added additional shows for the Live at The Gardens concert series that the LC manages,
including well-known artists Mary Chapin Carpenter/Brandy Clark, The Music of Billy Joel with
the Fort Collins Symphony, and The Commodores. The existing budget for Artist Fees paid for
shows is not sufficient to cover the expenses related to the shows in 2025. The additional cost
will be covered by revenue by a margin of at least 100% for at least a net zero impact to the
Lincoln Center budget.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue
$711,000
FOR: Lincoln Center live show promoters and artists
$711,000
C. RECREATION FUND
1. Excess Revenue from Higher Participation
The purpose of this item is to consider an appropriation of $450,000 of unanticipated 2025
revenue in the Recreation Fund to support expenses related to higher participation rates than
anticipated during the 2025-2026 Budgeting for Outcomes cycle. Recreation is currently
forecasted to finish 2025 with surplus revenue of about $700,000 and needs to appropriate a
portion of these funds to cover the expenses related to increased participation compared to
budget (driven primarily by increased hourly support).
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue
$450,000
FOR: Expenses related to higher participate rate
$450,000
D. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. Open Streets Vendor Fees
Open Streets is an annual FC Moves event that promotes active modes of transportation and
invites folks to experience streets without cars. At Open Streets, participants can expect 1-2
miles of car-free, family-friendly streets. Participants are encouraged to Ride the Route and
explore areas called “Activity Hubs”- temporary clusters of activity provided by local businesses
Page 32 of 176
and organizations. Vendors for Open Streets are charged $50 if they are a non-profit, $100 if
they are a private business.
This request includes $1,400 in fees that have been collected to date in 2025, and a projection
of another $3,600 we expect to collect for the remainder of 2025. It is important that we are able
to offset our costs with these fees, since our operating budget is not large enough to support this
event without incoming revenue.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Vendor Fees) $5,000
FOR: Open Streets Program $5,000
2. Spin Annual Payment
Per the contract between the City and Spin, Spin pays an annual fee of $10,000. These funds
can be used at the City's discretion and typically are used for projects related to the Spin
program. In 2025, funds were used to install bike/scooter boxes for better parking options, and
to support the Which Wheels Go Where project to update City code regulating what types of
micromobility can be used on what facilities.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Spin annual payment)
$10,000
FOR: Installation of bike and scooter boxes for parking
$10,000
3. Crushing Facility Work for Other Program
The Planning, Development and Transportation Work for Others program is a self-supported
program for all “Work for Others” activities within Streets. Customers are charged for the
products they purchase from the Hoffman Mill Crushing Facility. Due to unanticipated projects
and equipment/parts needs, additional funding of $125,000 is requested to cover expenses
through the end of 2025. Revenue generated at the facility will offset the expense (expense will
not be incurred if revenue is not received).
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Work for Others)
$125,000
FOR: Work for Others program within the Streets Department
$125,000
4. Transfer of Appropriations for Concrete Work
The Laporte Avenue Bridges capital project (400902140) was completed in 2023.There was an
issue with the concrete used on the side path. The City and the contractor agreed that $115,000
would be withheld by the City for the deficient work. This withheld funding is proposed to be
transferred to the Streets Department operating fund. This funding will be utilized for concrete
work within the Streets program in 2025.
FROM: Previous Unexpended Appropriation
$115,000
FOR: Concrete work
$115,000
E. SELF-INSURANCE FUND
Page 33 of 176
1. Self Insurance Fund Revenue
City insurance premiums and claim settlements are projected to exceed the 2025 budget within
the Self Insurance Fund. 2025 Fund revenues in the amount of $653,461 are available for
appropriation to cover excess insurance expenditures.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue
$653,461
FOR: City insurance premiums and claim settlements
$653,461
F. UTILITY CS&A FUND
1. Banking & Credit Card Fee Appropriation
Appropriate additional banking and credit card fees based on an increased number of
customers utilizing online banking services to pay utility bills via eCheck or credit card. Utilities
absorbs transaction fees for online payments (1) $0.50 per eCheck and (2) Debit/Credit Cards
are 1.15% up to $1,500, increasing to 2.75% for transactions over $1,500. Additional fee budget
is offset by the increase in fund revenues attributed to customer transaction growth and utility
rate increases.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from customer growth/rate increases
$506,778
FOR: Utilities Banking & Credit Card Fees
$506,778
2. Utilities Legal Expenses Appropriation - Part 1 of 5
This request will appropriate revenue received from the Open International judgement to cover
the related unplanned legal expenses incurred in 2025. Legal expenses will exceed currently
budgeted amounts in Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Customer Service &
Administration (CS&A) Funds.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from Open Intl judgement
$36,804
FOR: Unplanned legal expenses
$36,804
G. LIGHT & POWER FUND
1. Light & Power System Additions for Development Revenue
This request will appropriate additional Light & Power development fee revenue to cover the
related electric infrastructure costs to serve new and/or upgraded residential and commercial
developments.
Expenses for electric system additions are development-dependent and are anticipated to end
the year over the original budgeted amounts. Through July 2025, revenues generated from
development are over budget by $1,504,528.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue Light & Power Development Fees
$1,504,528
Page 34 of 176
FOR: Electric Infrastructure Costs
$1,504,528
2. Utilities Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) - Part 1 of 3
This request will appropriate additional PILOT revenue to cover associated PILOT expenses for
Utilities funds. PILOT revenues (6% of electric, water, and wastewater charges) collected by
Utilities are a direct pass-through expense to the City's General Fund. Fund PILOT revenues
and expenses are exceeding budgeted 2025 amounts.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue PILOT
$299,000
FOR: PILOT Expenses
$299,000
3. Utilities Legal Expenses Appropriation - Part 2 of 5
This request will appropriate revenue received from the Open International judgement to cover
the related unplanned legal expenses incurred in 2025. Legal expenses will exceed currently
budgeted amounts in Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Customer Service &
Administration (CS&A) Funds.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from Open Intl judgement
$205,915
FOR: Unplanned legal expenses
$205,915
H. WATER FUND
1. Utilities Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) - Part 2 of 3
This request will appropriate additional PILOT revenue to cover associated PILOT expenses for
Utilities funds. PILOT revenues (6% of electric, water, and wastewater charges) collected by
Utilities are a direct pass-through expense to the City's General Fund. Fund PILOT revenues
and expenses are exceeding budgeted 2025 amounts.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue PILOT
$250,000
FOR: PILOT Expenses
$250,000
2. Utilities Legal Expenses Appropriation - Part 3 of 5
This request will appropriate revenue received from the Open International judgement to cover
the related unplanned legal expenses incurred in 2025. Legal expenses will exceed currently
budgeted amounts in Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Customer Service &
Administration (CS&A) Funds.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from Open Intl judgement
$102,958
FOR: Unplanned legal expenses
$102,958
Page 35 of 176
I. WASTEWATER FUND
1. Utilities Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) - Part 3 of 3
This request will appropriate additional PILOT revenue to cover associated PILOT expenses for
Utilities funds. PILOT revenues (6% of electric, water, and wastewater charges) collected by
Utilities are a direct pass-through expense to the City's General Fund. Fund PILOT revenues
and expenses are exceeding budgeted 2025 amounts.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue PILOT
$55,000
FOR: PILOT Expenses
$55,000
2. Utilities Legal Expenses Appropriation - Part 4 of 5
This request will appropriate revenue received from the Open International judgement to cover
the related unplanned legal expenses incurred in 2025. Legal expenses will exceed currently
budgeted amounts in Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Customer Service &
Administration (CS&A) Funds.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from Open Intl judgement
$51,479
FOR: Unplanned legal expenses
$51,479
J. STORMWATER FUND
1. Utilities Legal Expenses Appropriation - Part 5 of 5
This request will appropriate revenue received from the Open International judgement to cover
the related unplanned legal expenses incurred in 2025. Legal expenses will exceed currently
budgeted amounts in Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Customer Service &
Administration (CS&A) Funds.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue from Open Intl judgement
$51,479
FOR: Unplanned legal expenses
$51,479
K. GOLF FUND
1. Banking & Contract Labor Expenses
Golf has seen record revenue and rounds over the past couple of years which has resulted in
higher banking fees and contract labor expenses. The requested annual adjustment is to
account for this increased revenue ($550,000) and related increased expenses ($50,000 for
banking fees and $500,000 for contract labor).
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue
$550,000
FOR: Contract Labor and Banking Fees
$550,000
Page 36 of 176
2. Capital Projects and City Park 9 Fairway Damages
Golf is experiencing unforeseen increases in expenses related to minor capital projects and City
Park 9 fairway damages. This requested adjustment is to cover these additional costs ($362,600
for minor capital expenses and $12,000 for City Park 9 fairway damages). This request would
be paid for by Golf Fund reserves.
FROM: Golf Fund Reserves
$374,600
FOR: Minor capital projects and City Park 9 Fairway Damages
$374,600
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2025 appropriations by $7,239,411. Of that amount, this Ordinance
increases General Fund 2025 appropriations by $1,181,409, including use of $370,329 in prior year
reserves. Funding for the total increase to City appropriations is $5,835,900 from unanticipated
revenue, $1,288,511 from prior year reserves, and $115,000 from transfers from reserves or previously
appropriated funds.
The following is a summary of the items requesting prior-year reserves:
Item
# Fund Use Amount
A4 General Fund Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax $28,329
A8 General Fund Grocery Rebate Program participation
A9 General Fund Land Bank Operating Expenses
F1 Utility CS&A Fund Banking & Credit Card Fee Appropriation
F2 Utility CS&A Fund Utilities Legal Expenses Appropriation
K2 Golf Fund Capital Projects and City Park 9 Fairway Damages
Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $1,288,511
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Do you support us moving forward to full council on September 16th?
Mayor Arndt; yes
Page 37 of 176
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; I would like to request a small memo addressing police overtime when they have
outside jobs. I don’t get why we do that –why we track and help support outside jobs for police
overtime. I have brought this up in the past but didn’t get a really good answer.
Kelly Ohlson; page 106 Laporte bridges work - Did we get enough back to make the work right?
Work was a failure – we went after it – got the money back. Did it cover fixing the problem?
Emily Francis; I am good
Kelly Ohlson; I am good
Meeting adjourned at 6:15 pm
Page 38 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 1
September 4, 2025
Finance Committee
STAFF
Monica Martinez – FP&A Manager, PDT
– Director, PDT
The City of Fort Collins has been awarded funding under the Colorado Department of Local Affairs
Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund (“EIAF”) program for station location and
of the Front Range Passenger Rail project (“FRPR”), a new passenger rail system
partners on this award with Loveland receiving $150k and Fort Collins receiving $250k.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends use of 2025 Tax Climate to meet the $125k local match requirement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins is partnering with Loveland on the use of $400k in DOLA grant funding. These
funds are to be used for station location and preliminary design of the FRPR. At this time, staff is seeking
the recommendation of Council Finance Committee on whether to fund the $125k local match, and, if so,
direction on the use of 2050 Tax Climate to fund this need.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Use of $125k of the 2050 Tax Climate for local match.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Click or tap here to enter text.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Click or tap here to enter text.
Page 39 of 176
August 20, 2025
Vanessa Fenley via email only
Housing Manager
City of Fort Collins
222 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Gap Funding Discretionary Request – Affordable Housing Capital Fund
Switchgrass Crossing – 3800 Mason Street, Fort Collins
Dear Vanessa,
Thank you for the City’s continued support of Volunteers of America (VOA) and funding of $1.2 mm through the
2025 competitive funding process for the Switchgrass Crossing project. The purpose of this letter is to request
additional gap funding from the City so we may close on our financing in early March 2026.
As you know, the City’s competitive process funding came with Build America Buy America (BABA)
requirements. BABA has put a significant administrative burden (increased soft costs) on the Architect and
General Contractor in addition to the increased hard costs which both impact the owner’s budget. Switchgrass
Crossing has experienced cost escalation caused by these new BABA requirements as well as general continued
cost escalation. As a result, VOA has also had to submit a funding request to the State Division of Housing for
$1.0 mm in additional gap funding in addition to making this request to the City.
Volunteers of America is a faith based, national non-profit whose mission is to provide high quality services to
uplift our communities most vulnerable populations across a spectrum of clients. In the City of Fort Collins, we
provide high quality housing to older adults and a range of services to vulnerable populations. The Switchgrass
Crossing development follows up the successful Cadence project developed in 2021-2022 where the residents
love living and currently has a 400+ person waitlist.
A brief summary of the project is as follows;
• Unit Mix: 39 one bedroom units + 6 two bedroom units = 45 total units.
• Population: Older adults, age 55+.
• Area Median Income: 30-60% which for Larimer County equates to $27,000-$61,000.
• Developer/Owner: Volunteers of America National Services.
• Financing: Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), loans and gap funds.
Page 40 of 176
• Sustainability Features: All electric, have a solar PV system on the roof, and many other
sustainable features. It will be built to Enterprise Green Communities,
Energy Star and Zero Energy Homes standards.
• Team The development (architecture/engineering/general contractor,
financing (debt/equity), and ownership (VOA/Housing Catalyst) team
will be the same as Cadence.
• Financing Status: Awarded CHFA 9% LIHTC (May, 2025), City of Fort Collins (June, 2025),
Debt/Equity LOI (August, 2025),& application for DOH funds (August,
2025).
• Design Status: Working with the City via the Integrated Design Process (IDAP) recently
completed Design Development (DD) documents and submitting a
Building Development Plan (BDR) this week.
• Timing: Our planned financing closing is March, 2026.
The increasing costs and financing plan require additional City funding. For 2026 as in past years, the City’s
competitive funding process is anticipated to be applications due in February and awards finalized by City
Council in June. This funding timeline does not align with our planned project schedule. Volunteers of America
requests discretionary funding of $1.4 mm in funding from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund to be used for
development costs of the Switchgrass Crossing project.
Thanks for considering this request and I can be reached at 303-726-1055 and dsnyder@voa.org if you have any
additional questions.
Sincerely,
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA
Vice President, Regional Real Estate Development
Page 41 of 176
September 8, 2025
To: City Council
Re: Gap Funding Discretionary Request – Affordable Housing Capital Fund
Switchgrass Crossing – 3800 Mason Street, Fort Collins
Per the mission of the Affordable Housing Board (AHB) to advise City Council on
matters pertaining to affordable housing topics of concern to the City, we recommend
that Council approves the Volunteers of America (VOA) request for $1.4MM gap funding
for the Switchgrass Crossing project to offset additional costs due to Build America Buy
America (BABA) requirements as well as general cost escalations conditional upon
VOA closing any additional gap needs.
Respectfully,
Bob Pawlikowski
Vice-Chair, Affordable Housing Board
Page 42 of 176
Monica Martinez -PDT FP&A Manager
Caryn Champine –Director, PDT
Front Range
Passenger Rail Grant
Local Match
09/04/2025
Page 43 of 176
2
CFC Question
Does CFC support staff exploring the use
of 2050 Tax Climate to provide the local
match for the Front Range Passenger Rail
Grant?
Page 44 of 176
3
Front Range Passenger Rail Grant
Project Timeline Year
Effective Grant Date August 2025
Award & Project End Date Fall 2027
Preliminary Demonstration Service Starts (Joint Service)2029
Grant funds will be used for a “study” that will support preliminary design efforts including identification of a
Fort Collins near-term (joint service) station & a long-term station
Joint service will be service from Fort Collins to Denver. Long-term service is anticipated to run from Fort Collins
to Pueblo using BNSF railroad.
Funding for the service will be via a proposed ballot measure. The ballot measure is anticipated after joint
service begins running.
Page 45 of 176
4
Front Range Passenger Rail Grant
Total Award Amount $400,000
Loveland Award Amount $150,000
Grant $75,000
Local Match $75,000
Fort Collins Award Amount $250,000
Grant $125,000
Local Match – 2050 Tax Climate $125,000
The amount being requested is the Fort Collins local match of $125k. Staff recommends use of the 2050 Tax
Climate to meet the local match.
Page 46 of 176
5
CFC Question
Does CFC support staff exploring the use of
2050 Tax Climate to provide the local match
for the Front Range Passenger Rail Grant?
Page 47 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 8
October 2, 2025
STAFF
Dean Klingner, Community Services Director
The purpose of this item is to present current scope, budget, funding stack and Intergovernmental
GA) framework with Poudre Libraries and Poudre School District for the Southeast
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the presented scope, budget and funding stack to be scheduled for a regular Council
meeting to appropriate available funds and approve the scope and budget in November/December 2025.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Southeast Community Center project includes over 11 years of project development from the
completion of a 2013 Feasibility study through today. Due to the volume of background information, this
Agenda Item Summary presents the background in summary, not complete detail.
• In October of 2013, the City completed the “Fort Collins Southeast Community Recreation & Arts
Center – Summary of Needs and Development Plan.” This study provides valuable information
about the origination of the idea of a facility in SE Fort Collins, but is now old enough that it does
not reflect current community needs.
• In April of 2015, the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) ¼-cent sales tax passed
and included an item for a ”Southeast Community Center and Outdoor Pool.” The more detailed
language read: ”The Southeast Community Center with Outdoor Pool will build a Community
Center in southeast Fort Collins focused on innovation, technology, art, recreation, and the
creative process. The Center will also have a large outdoor leisure pool with water slides, sprays,
jets, decks, a lazy river and open swimming area.”
Page 48 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 8
• In January of 2021, City Council adopted “ReCreate, Parks and Recreation Master Plan.” This
document is the “north star” for guiding parks and recreation policy and investment and highlights
the need and plan for a Southeast Community Center at a high level.
• In 2022, at Council’s request, the City completed a more detailed aquatics study to understand
the demand, options and opportunities for public aquatics facilities in Fort Collins.
• In 2022, City Council held two work sessions and a Council Finance Committee discussing this
project. No decisions were made, and as a result of these meetings, City staff continued to work
with the Poudre River Public Library District (PRPLD or ”the Library‘) and Poudre School District
(PSD) as potential partners and began to consider a larger facility than required in the ballot
language that could be phased or funded through a future funding source.
• In November of 2023, the 2050 1/2-cent sales tax passed with the following ballot language: “50%
for the replacement, upgrade, maintenance and accessibility of parks facilities and for the
replacement and construction of indoor and outdoor recreation and pool facilities.”
• The 2023-24, City Budget included funds for project development and design. City staff have
been actively working on this phase of the project since the 1st quarter of 2024.
• Staff presented four facility scope and budget options at Council Finance on February 6, 2025.
Also presented, was a “funding stack” that used multiple funding sources to finance the options
presented. The Council Finance Committee recommended that staff bring forward option 2b to
the full Council at this work session as the recommended project. This was in alignment with
staff’s recommended scope and budget that met the intent of the 2015 CCIP ballot project,
fulfilled the partnership commitment with both Poudre Libraries and PSD, could be funded with
the identified funds, meets the Community Center level of service defined in the ReCreate Master
Plan, and is comparable to the size and amenities in Fort Collins’ two other Community Centers.
It also meets the gap of a community center in SE Fort Collins.
• Staff presented the four facility scope and budget options at a City Council Work Session on
February 25, 2025. Also presented was the funding stack that was presented at Council Finance.
City Council was supportive of staff moving forward with the scope and budget option for facility
2b. Facility 2b
Page 49 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 8
Bond against 2050 Tax Bond Proceeds $27 $36 $43
2050 Tax Reserves $10 $10 $12
CCIP Appropriated $18 $18 $18
CCIP Reserves $12 $12 $12
DOLA Grant $2 $2 $2
Recreation Reserves $1 $2 $3
Total City Funding for SECC $70 $80 $90
% of 2050 Parks & Recreation Share 13%17%20%
Bond Years 20 20 20
Bond Rate 5.0%5.0%5.0%
Net Taxable Growth Rate 2.5%2.5%2.5%
Potential Funding Scenarios ($ in Millions)
Assumptions
Proposed funding stack presented at City Council Work Session February 6, 2025 and Council
Finance Committee February 25, 2025.
IGA Update
City and Poudre Libraries staff have been meeting regularly to agree to the terms and framework for an
IGA. The framework negotiated is a fair share of design, construction and operating costs for the facility.
Staff anticipate bringing the IGA for approval by the end of 2025.The IGA will be followed up with a facility
use agreement that will be reviewed annually by staff.
City and Poudre School District (PSD) staff have been meeting regularly to agree to the terms and
framework for an IGA that will govern the shared drive, shared parking, access to utilities on PSD site and
facility use at the SECC and other city and PSD facilities.
Work Since February 2025
Significant work has taken place over the past seven months.
• Schematic Design (30% completion) September 2025
• Major Amendment and site plan ready for Development Review submission
• Community Engagement
The design team of Clark & Enersen and pre-construction team of GH Phipps (project team) presented the
SD scope and budget in early September. The estimated total project for the city exceeded the range
presented in February by $13 Million. City staff worked alongside our project team to clean up the scope
and work through some options to reduce the overall cost of the facility to align with the budget range from
February and stay as close to the scope presented as possible. City staff and the project team referred to
feedback from community engagement, ballot language, the aquatics study, P&R Master plan and current
and future demand of program spaces to inform program space reductions and/or elimination.
Below is a snapshot of the facility at the end of the schematic design phase. The facility shown meets the
scope of the facility that was preferred by Council members in February. The facility projected cost of $93M
exceeded the $68-80M dollar range presented in February. Not shown in the photos is the outdoor pool.
Page 50 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 8
Over the past two weeks, the project team has revised the facility to bring it back under budget. The current
projected project cost is $78.4M. The updated facility is shown below.
Page 51 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 8
Overall, the scope of the facility is reduced with the only elimination being the childcare wing of the facility.
The childcare wing was not something the community was excited about, nor did they say was it needed
during community outreach. Staff did hear that there was a need to have a child drop-in area so community
members could have a safe place for their non-school aged children to be while they utilized the facility.
The indoor lap lanes were reduced from ten to 8 lanes and removing the diving boards, and space on the
deck for viewing.
The gymnasium was reduced in size from accommodating two full-sized high school courts to two full-size
middle school courts with courtside seating.
The walking track was reduced in size and removed one lane to bring the total lanes to two.
The upstairs fitness area was reduced in size along with the elimination of a separate staff breakroom.
Funding Stack
Staff will be presenting a funding stack that closely mirrors the one presented to City Council at the work
session in February 2025. This funding stack has the same bond and sales tax growth assumptions
presented in February 2025.
Page 52 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 8
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The proposed facility has an estimated capital cost of $78.4M. Funding the project is possible through a
combination of funding sources detailed above. The operations, staffing, maintenance and revenue for
the facility is below.
• Projected Expenses: $2,630,000
• Projected Revenue: $ 2,000,000-$2,300,000
• Projected Cost Recovery:75-88%
• Projected General Fund Subsidy:
$400K-800K per year
• Full-time Staff: 15 FTE
• Annual Cost: $1.2M
• Part-time Staff Cost: $700,000
Staff is projecting the SECC to have a General Fund impact of $400,000 to $800,000 per year with the
first five years being $225K to $575K per year due to the 2015 CCIP operational money allocated to this
project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Community Engagement
Page 53 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 8
City and Poudre Libraries staff were at multiple events over the past seven months. Below is a snapshot
of the themes we heard for the recreation center (in no order):
• Indoor leisure aquatics
• Outdoor leisure aquatics
• Court sports (basketball, volleyball, pickleball)
• Drop-in childcare (child watch)
• Weight room and fitness that can serve youth, teens, adults
• Senior programs
• Places for teenagers to hang
• Concerns of youth crossing harmony to access facility
• Safe place for pre-teens/teens to hang, play and easy access to it by bus and bike
• Lots of maker type classes
• Track
• Lap lanes
• A safe place for pre-teens / teens to hang, play, & easy access to it by bus & bike
Page 54 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
1. SECC PowerPoint presentation
Page 55 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 56 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereQuestions
2
What feedback do you have before this is ready for
Council Appropriation?
What feedback do you have on the recommended current
scope and budget?
What input do you have on the IGA framework?
Page 57 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Project Timeline – 2015-2023
APRIL
CCIP ballot
measure passed
2015 2021 202320222021
OCTOBER
City Council
requests completion
of aquatics study
AUGUST
IGA developed and
adopted between
Poudre Libraries, PSD
and City
JANUARY
ReCreate: Parks
& Recreation
Master Plan
adopted
JAN. - MARCH
Aquatics study
completed and
presented to City
Council at work
session
Partnership
conversations with
Poudre Libraries and
Poudre School District
begin
2023
NOVEMBER
2050 Parks &
Recreation tax passes
NOVEMBER
City Staff present at
Council Work Session
Page 58 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Design Process
PROGRAMMING /
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
Schematic Design
February 2025 to Present
Feb 2025 Council
Work Session
WE ARE HERE!
Available Funding
Appropriation/Resolution
Nov./Dec. 2025
Bond Development
Dec. ‘25-Mar. ‘26
Groundbreaking
mid-2026
Page 59 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereFacility Option 2b – Recommended in Feb 2025
5
Estimated Cost Recovery: 66 – 82%
Estimated Annual General Fund Subsidy: $450,000 – $850,000
Total Area: 64-74,000 sf
Total Cost: $68-80M
Group
Exercise
SmallLocker
Rooms &
Family
Change
Outdoor Recreational Pool
Multiple Pools, Lazy River, Slides
Aquatic
Support
Fitness Center
Medium
Indoor
10-lane 25 m x 25 yd
Lap Pool
Admin
Offices
Lobby/
Reception
Maint/
Mech
2-court Gymnasium
Licensed
Daycare
Multi-Purpose Meeting
Rooms Event Hall
Creative/
Messy/
Innovation
Space
Catering
Kitchen
Café/
Lounge
Shared Spaces
Walking/
Jogging
Track
Page 60 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 61 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereSchematic Design – Entire Facility
7
Schematic Design
that aligned to scope
supported by City
Council in February
2025
Total Area: 74,641 sf
Total Cost: $93M
Page 62 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereVE to maintain ballot and scope
8
62,400 Sq feet
$78.4M
74,641 Sq feet
$93M
Page 63 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereCurrent Scope
9
62,400 Sq feet
$78.4M
Page 64 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereFunding Stack 2.25.25 Council Work Session
10
Bond Years 20
Bond Rate 5.0%
Net Taxable Growth Rate 2.5%
Assumptions
Bond against 2050 Tax Bond Proceeds $27 $36 $43
2050 Tax Reserves $10 $10 $12
CCIP Appropriated $18 $18 $18
CCIP Reserves $12 $12 $12
DOLA Grant $2 $2 $2
Recreation Reserves $1 $2 $3
Total City Funding for SECC $70 $80 $90
% of 2050 Parks & Recreation Share 13%17%20%
Bond Years 20 20 20
Bond Rate 5.0%5.0%5.0%
Net Taxable Growth Rate 2.5%2.5%2.5%
Potential Funding Scenarios ($ in Millions)
Assumptions
Page 65 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Funding Stack Recommendation
Page 66 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereOperations & Maintenance Cost/Projected Cost Recovery
12
•Projected Expenses: $2,630,000
•Projected Revenue: $ 2,000,000-$2,300,000
•Projected Cost Recovery:75-88%
•Projected General Fund Subsidy:
$400K-800K per year
•Full-time Staff: 15 FTE
•Annual Cost: $1.2M
•Part-time Staff Cost: $700,000
•Revenue projections are highly influenced by
number of pass holders. 70-75% of total revenue
Page 67 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 68 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereCommunity Engagement Events
14Page 69 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereEngaging Kids
15Page 70 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Next Steps Nov/Dec 2025
16
•Fund facility scope at $78.4M
•Resolution to approve the
presented funding stack
•Make any available appropriations
Page 71 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereIGA Update
17
•IGA development in progress
•Focus on fair share capital and O & M
•Additional considerations: water usage,
shared parking spaces, land/sewer uses
Page 72 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereQuestions
18
What feedback do you have before this is ready for
Council Appropriation?
What feedback do you have on the recommended current
scope and budget?
What input do you have on the IGA framework?
Page 73 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
Back Up Slides
Page 74 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereIncrease access and inclusion for vulnerable populations
20
Why Fund the SECC? Who benefits?
Brings health and wellness to southern half of Fort Collins
•All community members benefit
Access to Recreation facility and programs for low-income populations
•All Recreation facility pass - $50 per year
•70-90% off programs including summer day camp
Expands access to Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation Opportunities
Fulfills the 2015 CCIP facility scope and 2050 Tax approval to completely
fund the facility
Page 75 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HerePROJECT PURPOSE & GOALS
21
The purpose of the SECC is to provide a vibrant, relevant, enduring, and innovative community
destination for generations of residents of Fort Collins, the Library District, and the PSD community, with one-stop
access to recreation, aquatics, and library services and resources. By joining together to create and operate this facility,
partners will maximize and enhance their individual investments and provide
increased convenience, better services, and more varied uses than would be possible
in separate standalone facilities.
Page 76 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
22
Section 3. That any revenues generated by the Tax and
remaining unexpended and unencumbered after the
completion of the construction of all of the Projects
described on Exhibit “A”, excluding any of these Projects
eliminated by the City Council under the provisions of
Section 2(b) above, may, in the discretion of the City
Council, be used to fund additional operation and
maintenance of the Projects or for the planning, design, real
property acquisition, construction, operation and/or
maintenance for any other capital project approved by the
City Council.
CCIP Ordinance in 2015 regarding excess collections
Page 77 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
How should 2050 P&R tax be split between eligible
elements?
Illustration:
Life of 2050 tax =
27 years x $10.5M (2024 dollars) =
$283 M
~80% = ~227 M replacement/refresh
~=$8.4M/year
~20% = ~$57 M replacement and
construction of indoor and outdoor
recreation and pool facilities
80%
20%
Potential Split of 2050 Parks and Rec Funds
Replacement, Upgrade, Maintenance, etc. -- PARKS & RECREATION
Replacement & Construction of Indoor and Oudoor Recreation and Pool Facilities
Page 78 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereFunding Stack Options
24Page 79 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereAffordable Housing and CCIP
25
Status
•$4 million over 10 years from 2015
CCIP
•Approximately $2 million available in
fund currently ($1.6 million for direct
subsidy and/or fee credits plus
$400,000 dedicated to fee credits)
•$1.4 million subsidy request in
process (VOA Switchgrass
Crossing)
Additional Funding Options
•Additional direct subsidies for
affordable housing projects
•Timing for use dependent on
housing pipeline; adding funds to
competitive process could speed
deployment
•Expand fee relief
•Timing for use dependent on
housing pipeline
•Equity investments/revolving
loan fund
•Additional work required to prepare
for implementationPage 80 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereSchematic Design Level 1
26Page 81 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereSite Plan
27Page 82 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereProgramOption 1 Option 2a Option 2b Option 3
Proposed
Amenities
40-50,000 sf
Large Outdoor
Recreation Pool
10-Lane Indoor Pool
Small Fitness
No Licensed Daycare
No Group Exercise
No Gymnasium
No Walk/Jog Track
60-70,000 sf
Large Outdoor
Recreation Pool
10-Lane Indoor Pool
Medium Fitness
Licensed Daycare
Small Group Exercise
One Court Gym
Smaller Track
64-74,000 sf
Large Outdoor
Recreation Pool
10-Lane Indoor Pool
Medium Fitness
Licensed Daycare
Small Group Exercise
Two Court Gym
Larger Track
75-85,000 sf
Large
Indoor/Outdoor
Recreation Pool
10-Lane Indoor Pool
Medium Fitness
Licensed Daycare
Small Group Exercise
Two Court Gym
Larger Track
Program
Diversity Lowest Medium High Highest
Usage
(Annually):Lowest Medium High Highest
Construction
Cost:Lowest Medium Medium Highest
Cost Recovery Lowest Medium Highest Medium
30-Yr. O&M
General Fund
Cost Est:Highest Medium Lowest High
28
Page 83 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
October 2, 2025
Finance Committee
STAFF
Vanessa Fenley, Sr. Housing Manager
Director, Utilities Finance
Staff will present information on a recent request from Volunteers of America (VOA) to access $1.4
million from the City’s Affordable Housing Capital Fund in the CCIP to support a new age-restricted,
-restricted housing development (Switchgrass Crossing). CCIP funds have been appropriated for
Committee to gain additional information on this specific request prior to this item
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends moving the Affordable Housing Capital Fund request from VOA forward for full Council
consideration.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Background on CCIP Affordable Housing Capital Fund
The 2015 Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) package includes $4 million, over 10 years,
for the Affordable Housing Capital Fund (AHCF). The AHCF has been used for “last in” gap financing for
projects, provided as direct subsidy and fee credits. Funding provided as direct subsidy is structured as a
due-on-sale loan; given the developers awarded funding do not intend to sell the development, the City
does not anticipate any funding from the AHCF awarded to-date to be returned.
Four affordable housing projects have accessed funding from the AHCF. While funding has been
appropriated for the general purpose of supporting affordable housing developments, specific requests
have been approved by Council through resolutions or ordinances. A summary of AHCF awards is
included in Table 1.
Page 84 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
Table 1. Projects Awarded Funding from the AHCF
2022-2023 $610,000 Oak 140 79 Direct Subsidy
2021 $200,000 VOA Cadence 45 Fee Relief
2020-2021 $876,662 Mason Place PSH 60 Direct Subsidy
2019 $100,000 Mason Place PSH - Fee Relief
2019 $541 Village on Redwood 72 Fee Relief
2019 $806 Redtail Ponds PSH 60 Fee Relief
2018-2019 $92,375 Oakridge Crossing 110 Fee Relief
2018 $119,257 Village on Horsetooth 96 Fee Relief
The AHCF has approximately $2 million available and appropriated to support affordable housing
development. This includes $400,000 set aside to provide fee credits for eligible units through the City’s
administrative process, leaving $1.6 million available for direct subsidies or additional fee credits.
VOA Switchgrass Crossing Request
Volunteers of America has requested $1.4 million in last-in gap financing to support development of
Switchgrass Crossing. Switchgrass Crossing will be located at 3800 S. Mason St and comprise 45 units,
including 39 1-bedroom units and six 2-bedroom units. The project will serve adults 55 years of age and
older in the area median income range of 30% - 60% (currently between $26,820 and $53,640 for a one-
person household).
Other sources of funding include 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits and a $1.2 million award from the
City’s 2025 affordable housing competitive funding process (federal HOME and CDBG funding). In
addition, Volunteers of America is in process of requesting an additional $1 million in gap financing from
the State Division of Housing. Volunteers of America has reported increases in development costs due to
Build America Buy America (BABA) requirements. The Build America Buy America Act was passed as
part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It requires federally-funded infrastructure
projects to use construction materials produced in the United States.
Additional information regarding Switchgrass Crossing and this funding request are included in the
attached letter from Volunteers of America.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Funding is available within the CCIP Affordable Housing Capital Fund to support VOA’s request of $1.4
million in direct subsidy. No additional requests from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund are pending at
this time.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach was conducted as part of the 2015 CCIP process. The Affordable Housing Board
reviewed and discussed this specific request for funding. Their memo of support is included as an
attachment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Request letter from Volunteers of America
2. Memo of support from the Affordable Housing Board
Page 85 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
Affordable Housing
CCIP Request
10-2-2025
Vanessa Fenley, Sr. Housing
Manager
Joe Wimmer, Director,
Utilities Finance Page 86 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Questions for Council Finance
What additional information is needed regarding this $1.4M
request?
Does the CFC support moving this request forward to
City Council?
Page 87 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereBackground: Affordable Housing Capital Fund
3
•Funded through 2015 Community Capital
Improvement Project
•$4 million, over 10 years, allocated to affordable
housing development
•Direct subsidies or fee credits
•Approximately $2 million remaining
•$1.6 million for direct subsidies or fee credits
•$400,000 dedicated for fee credits
•Funding is appropriated; previous requests
approved through Council resolution or
ordinance
Page 88 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Uses of CCIP Affordable Housing Capital Fund to Date
Year Amount Project Units Type
2022-2023 $610,000 Oak 140 79 Direct Subsidy
2021 $200,000 VOA Cadence 45 Fee Relief
2020-2021 $876,662 Mason Place PSH 60 Direct Subsidy
2019 $100,000 Mason Place PSH -Fee Relief
2019 $541 Village on Redwood 72 Fee Relief
2019 $806 Redtail Ponds PSH 60 Fee Relief
2018-2019 $92,375 Oakridge Crossing 110 Fee Relief
2018 $119,257 Village on
Horsetooth 96 Fee ReliefPage 89 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereRequest: Switchgrass Crossing
5
$1.4 million request for direct
subsidy
•Developer: Volunteers of America
•Location: 3800 S. Mason St.
•Size: 45 units (39 1-bd and six 2-bd
units)
•Population:
•Adults 55 and older
•30% - 60% of Area Median
Income
•Incorporates sustainability features
•Request for last-in gap financing
supported by Affordable Housing
Board
Page 90 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Project Financing
•Awarded 9% LIHTC
•Awarded $1.2 million through the City’s 2025 competitive process
(HOME, CBDG)
•Increased costs for development necessitate seeking additional gap
financing
•In addition to CCIP request, VOA requesting $1 million in gap financing
from the Division of Housing
•Project qualifies for fee credits and EV infrastructure offset credits
•Planned financing close: March 2026
Page 91 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Questions for Council Finance
What additional information is needed regarding this $1.4M
request?
Does the CFC support moving this request forward to City
Council?
Page 92 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 6
October 2, 2025
Finance Committee
STAFF
Josh Birks, Deputy Director, Sustainability Services
st
The developers of the proposed Montava project are requesting an amendment to the existing Metro
District service plan. The amendment would alter the maximum debt authorization and authorize the district
s the underlying Public
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Presented with a recommendation to refer to Council for consideration, after conducting the required
hearing, of the proposed First Amendment to the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan
District Nos. 1 through 7.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Legal and Procedural Requirements
Part 2, Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) authorizes the formation of a
metropolitan district within the City by approval of Council of the district’s proposed service plan, after a
hearing on the proposed service plan which sets forth the public improvements and services which the
district will provide, by adoption of a resolution and subsequent voter approval in favor of the organization
of the district, per Part 3, Article 1 of Title 32, C.R.S.
Amendments to service plans which constitute a “material modification” of the originally approved service
plan require additional approval and process that is similar to those upon formation of a district, including
a public hearing on the proposed service plan amendments. C.R.S. § 32-1-207.
The City’s Financial Management Policy 10 – Metro Districts (the “Policy”), as authorized by City Council
Resolutions 2021-045, 2019-016, 2018-079, and 2008-069, further establishes the criteria, guidelines, and
processes for the City in considering applications for service plans for proposed metropolitan districts and
amendments to those plans. The Policy was originally adopted in 2008 and revised in both 2018 and 2021.
Page 93 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 6
History of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7
On September 25, 2018, Council approved, by adoption of Resolution 2018-083, the Consolidated Service
Plan (“Service Plan”) for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 (“Metro District”). The adopted
Service Plan encompassed approximately 988.5 Acres located in the northeast portion of the community
near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development was anticipated to include 2,000 single family
homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office, and 88,900 square feet of retail.
The project has committed to providing 10 percent of housing units in a mix of for rent and for-sale
affordable housing.
Adopted Service Plan Overview
The current Service Plan calls for the creation of seven, overlapping Metro Districts working collaboratively
to deliver the proposed Montava development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the
next 25 plus years and supports 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 a City Council approved development plan and/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 $163 million to cover 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
Proposed Amendments to Current Service Plan
On August 21, 2025, staff received a Letter of Interest from the Metro District, requesting review of its
proposed First Amendment to the Service Plan for the Metro District (the “Amendment”). (See AIS
Attachment 1, “Letter of Interest, First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metro Districts Nos. 1-7,
August 20, 2025.”) The Amendment requested two changes to the existing Service Plan:
1. To increase the Maximum Debt Authorization. The request would increase the current Maximum
Debt Authorization from $163 million to $297 million (Proposed Maximum Debt Authorization). This
increase of $134 million in Maximum Debt Authorization would all the Debt Mill of the Metro District
to cover approximately 75 percent of the anticipated $396 million in estimated public infrastructure
costs.
2. Grant Authority to Establish Special Improvement Districts. Title 32 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes authorizes metropolitan districts to establish Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) if they
are authorized in the service plan or approved in writing by the municipality that approved the
service plan.
Staff Review of the Amendment
Staff have reviewed both the Letter of Interest (AIS Attachment 1) and the Amendment (AIS Attachment
2, “Proposed First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7”) for consistency
with the City’s Policy.
1. Review of Public Benefits. The adopted Service Plan has committed to providing a variety direct
and indirect public benefits (the Public Benefits). The Public Benefits are described in detail in the
Page 94 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 6
current Service Plan, and delivery was secured by the Development Agreement to Secure Public
Benefits for Planned Unit Development Master Plan dated December 11, 2020 (“Public Benefits
Agreement” or “PBA”).
Please note that the proposed Amendment does not include modifications to the Service Plan that
would impact the ability of the project to deliver the benefits described in the PBA.
2. General Purposes of the proposed Amendment. The Metro District continues to be an integral
part of the financing, operation, and maintenance structure for the Montava Development. The
primary rationale for the Amendment ties to the ability of the Metro District to provide public
infrastructure in a timely and efficient manner. Each of the two requests embedded within the
Amendment are reviewed in detail below.
The current Service Plan established the Metro District, in part, as an important financing tool in
order to deliver on the public improvements. The Amendment also serves this purpose.
3. First of Two Proposed Changes: Increase the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Amendment
proposes an increase to the Maximum Debt Authorization of $134 million to a total of $297 million,
or approximately 75 percent of the anticipated public infrastructure costs of $396 million.
Policy Analysis: The City’s Policy establishes that the total debt authorized in a service plan must
not exceed 100 percent of the projected maximum debt capacity shown in the Metro District’s
financial plan. The revised financial plan, attached to the Amendment, supports the Metro Districts
issuance of $297 million in debt based on the parameters of the Policy and the authorizations (e.g.,
Debt Mill Levy, Term, etc.) under the exiting Service Plan.
Furthermore, the Public Improvements listed in the Amendment are consistent with the categories
in the previously approved Service Plan. Based on Table 1, revised cost estimates represent a 22
percent increase since 2018 (approximately 7 years) or a roughly 3.1 percent annual increase in
costs. While some of the line items have grown much more significantly, the total increase appears
to be reasonable given staff’s own understanding of construction cost increases throughout the
same period.
Table 1: Comparison of Public Improvement Cost Estimates
($ in millions)
Item 2018
Estimate
Revised
Estimate
Difference
Admin., Misc., & Engineering $47.00 $58.77 $11.77
Earthwork $21.50 $23.99 $2.49
Streets $105.30 $91.10 ($14.20)
Sanitary Sewer $15.70 $16.85 $1.15
Water $11.10 $17.79 $6.69
Nonpotable Water $13.80 $28.04 $14.42
Storm Sewer $10.20 $43.01 $32.81
Recreation $8.00 $8.50 $0.50
Landscaping, Trails, Open Space, & Farm Facilities $44.20 $49.46 $5.26
Contingency $48.00 $58.70 $10.7
Page 95 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 6
Total $325.00 $396.22 $71.22
Staff Assessment: The requested amount complies with the Policy limitation and the proposed use,
on Public Improvements, has not materially changed since approval in 2018.
4. Second of Two Proposed Changes: Authorize Establishment of Special Improvement
Districts. Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) are a kind of legal sub-area where property owners
(or property within the district) are assessed for public improvements that specifically benefit those
properties. The idea is that if a subset of properties will get a particular public improvement (streets,
sidewalks, sewers, etc.) then those properties help pay for it via assessments.
Colorado law provides for two different statutory contexts for the establishment of SIDs:
a. Within a special district. Pursuant to Title 32 (Special Districts) of the Colorado Revised
Statutes (“C.R.S.”), special districts (which is a political subdivision providing certain
services) may create an SID within their boundaries.
b. Within a municipality. Per Part 5, Article 25 of Title 31, C.R.S., municipalities may use
SIDs to finance local improvements, with statutorily defined powers, procedures,
assessment methods, and hearings.
The proposed Amendment would authorize the Metro District to establish SIDs for the purpose of
levying special assessments and issuing assessment lien bonds as part of the public improvement
funding mechanism. The intent, which is clearly spelled out in the Amendment, is for 100 percent
of the assessment and the lien encumbering a finished lot will be repaid prior to a resident taking
possession of a home.
The proposed Amendment proposes to expand the typical approach to financing public
improvement costs, which is to issue district-wide debt borne by all properties within the boundaries.
This approach may not always be the most equitable or efficient mechanism to allocate costs based
on benefit. Therefore, this proposed Amendment includes the authority to establish SIDs for the
purpose of offering a complementary financing method that provides flexibility, fairness, and fiscal
responsibility.
From a statutory perspective, there are several restrictions that make authorizing SIDs for the Metro
District consistent with the current financial authority of the existing Service Plan:
Assessments are limited to properties that specifically benefit from the funded public
improvement. This reinforces a nexus requirement and also provides additional
transparency around direct benefit.
Approval of an SID either requires written consent of 100 percent of the owner of the
property or approval by a majority of the eligible elector within the SID. Therefore, this tool
is subject to similar requirements of approval to the Metro District. Forming SIDs early on
will likely be easy for the developer but will become very difficult later in the development of
the project.
Assessments and financing based on that revenue are limited by statute to the
improvements that the “parent” special district is authorized to finance. In this case, those
are the public improvements identified directly in the Service Plan and no others.
The assessments and creation of SIDs must follow the powers given in the Service Plan,
require property approval or voters, and requirements of notice, hearings, etc. like the Metro
District.
Finally, the Amendment makes a specific stipulation around the use of SIDs that alleviates a staff
concern around further burdening homeowners. It states “any lien on a property resulting from the
Page 96 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 6
imposition of a special assessment shall be satisfied and cleared prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for any unit, structure or other appurtenance…” This self-imposed limitation on the
repayment of the special assessments ensures that no “End User” will be responsible for the
payment of the assessment.
Staff Assessment: The proposal to authorize the Metro District to create SIDs allows for the
diversification of both the method and timing of debt issuance to further the delivery of the public
improvements identified in the Service Plan. Furthermore, the statutory restrictions and the self-
imposed limitation address concerns of over-reach or using the SIDs to finance aspects of the
project that are not already identified in the Service Plan or do not accrue direct benefit to the
properties paying the assessment.
Given that the SIDs must remain within the boundaries of the Metro District, cannot be used to fund
anything other than the previously approved public improvements, and must be repaid before a
homeowner takes possession (a specific stipulation within the Amendment), this aspect of the
proposed Amendment may serve the general goals of the City Policy and the specific public
infrastructure and improvements of this project.
Council Review: City Policy and Procedure
The City Policy defines the process for reviewing newly proposed metro district service plans and plan
amendments. However, many of the steps of the Policy apply to newly proposed districts or to certain types
of service plan amendments. Therefore, staff have evaluated and now recommend (below) the steps of the
process required to consider a newly proposed service plan to determine which steps make the most step
to include in this review. Staff have been mindful of establishing clear rationale and a potential precedent
for future amendment reviews and/or adjustment to the Policy.
Staff recommend, more generally, that the Policy should be evaluated for necessary updates for
administration and clarity and to incorporate new best practices and any statutory changes since 2021.
Each step of the evaluation process has been evaluated for applicability to this review with a rationale
provide regarding inclusion or exclusion.
1. Letter of Interest (Include) – Requires the applicant submit a Letter of Interest to initiate the review
process and pay an associated fee (intended to offset staff review cost). This step has been
included in this review as it provides a likely and clear starting point to any review, whether for a
new district or an amendment.
2. Staff Response to LOI (Modify) – Staff elected to contact the applicant directly and conduct a
preliminary meeting rather than prepare a formal written response. This approach was chosen
given the overall scope of the amendment – being limited to financial aspects of the district and not
affecting the PBA.
3. Preliminary Staff Meeting with Applicant (Include) – As stated above, staff used this meeting in
lieu of a formal written response.
4. City Council Conceptual Review (Exclude) – The policy intends for this conceptual review to
provide Council an opportunity to understand the project and the extraordinary public benefits it will
generate prior to a full application proceeding. Thus, it seems that applying such an activity to an
existing Service Plan where the amendment does not alter the underlying project or public benefits
does not need to undergo this step of the process.
5. Formal Application & Submittal (Modify) – This is clearly a required step but rather than requiring
a complete Service Plan, staff requested a clear amendment draft be provided with ample time to
respond. Staff have received the Amendment and a draft of it is included with this document.
6. Formal Staff Review (Modify) – A full interdisciplinary staff team was not convened as the nature
of the Amendment was limited to the financing plan and public finance considerations. Staff and
Page 97 of 176
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 6
the City Attorney’s Office conducted a thorough review of the Amendment and discussed it with
Finance staff.
7. Council Finance Committee Meeting (Include) – The intent of this step is for a sub-section of the
Council to review the formal application and to do so with a focus on the Policy providing feedback
and recommendations. It is logical to include this step for two reasons (1) allowing a sub-section of
the Council a preliminary review will provide staff much needed feedback, and (2) the nature of the
Amendment is primarily financial making it a good fit for the committee’s review.
8. Public Hearing Notice (Include) – A requirement of statute and the Policy both.
9. Council Public Hearing (Include) – Required for Council to consider any service plan approval
including amendments.
Role of the Residential Scoring System
The existing Service Plan was not evaluated under the Residential Metro Districts Evaluation Points
System referenced in the Policy. The approval of the Metro District predates the addition of the system to
the Policy. However, in recognition of the lack of clarity regarding the public benefits to be delivered by the
project Council postponed final consideration on the original Service Plan approval twice. Furthermore,
Council adopted the Service Plan with an explicit limitation on the Metro District’s ability to issue debt,
collect the debt mill levy, or charge fees to pay debt until Council approved an intergovernmental agreement
and/or development agreement securing the Public Benefits described in the Service Plan.
Council reviewed and adopted an agreement meeting the requirements stated above at a special meeting
held on January 14, 2020 (Resolution 2020-007), which was finalized and executed on December 11, 2020.
The nature of those commitments on public benefits remains unaffected by the Amendment. Therefore,
applying the residential scoring system to a set of public benefits previously approved by Council and
unaltered did not seem necessary to staff. Therefore, no such assessment has been conducted nor is it
provided with this document.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No financial impact to the City.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
None to date; public notice of the First Amendment to property owners of any scheduled hearing on the
petition will be required, consistent with statutory requirements of Title 32, C.R.S. and City Policy.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter of Interest, First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metro Districts Nos. 1-7, August 20,
2025
2. Proposed First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7
3. Staff Presentation
Page 98 of 176
2154 E. Commons Ave., Ste. 2000 | Centennial, CO 80122 | P 303.858.1800 F 303.858.1801 | wbapc.com
August 21, 2025
Josh Birks
To Whom if May Concern:
Our office serves as general counsel to the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (the
“Districts”) in the City of Ft. Collins (the “City”), Colorado. The service plan for the Districts
was approved by the City Council of the City on September 25, 2018, as set forth in Resolution
2018-083 (the “Service Plan”). The Districts were established and are intended to enable the
Montava Vision and Master Plan (the “Project”). We are writing on behalf of the Districts’ Boards
of Directors (the “Boards”) to express the Districts’ interest in amending the Service Plan, and
this letter is provided in compliance with Section 3.B of the City’s Policy for Reviewing Service
Plan for Metropolitan Districts (the “Service Plan Policy”).
The purpose of the proposed First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan
District Nos. 1-7 (the “Amendment”) is to (1) increase the “Maximum Debt Authorization”
established in Section IX.B.7 of the Service Plan, and (2) to authorize the District to establish
Special Improvement Districts (“SID”) in addition to traditional bond issuances.
1. Increase Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts propose to increase the
Maximum Debt Authorization from $163,000.000 to $297,000,000 (the “Proposed
Maximum Debt Authorization”). In 2018, the Maximum Debt Authorization
represented approximately 50% of the estimated public infrastructure cost when the
Service Plan was approved ($325,194,543) and prior to any project engineering or
related approvals. Since 2018, based on further development planning, and Statewide
increased construction and material costs, the Districts’ engineers estimate public
infrastructure costs of $396,215,044, as provided in the attached conceptual opinion of
cost is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
The City’s Service Plan Policy establishes that the total debt authorized in a service
plan must not exceed 100% of the projected maximum debt capacity shown in the
financial plan. The Proposed Maximum Debt Authorization is supported by an updated
Page 99 of 176
August 21, 2025
Page 2
financial plan prepared by Piper Sandler & Co attached hereto as Attachment 2 (the
“Finance Plan”). The Finance Plan establishes that the Districts can support the
issuance of $297,000,000 in debt based on the parameters of the Service Plan Policy
and the existing authorizations under the Service Plan.
Approval of the Proposed Maximum Debt Authorization will allow the Districts to
efficiently plan for the financing and construction of public infrastructure necessary for
the Project, and assures the Districts that they will have the authorization to finance
necessary public infrastructure as the Project gets underway. Without an increase, the
Districts’ financing authority will fall significantly short of the resources necessary to
construct required infrastructure for the Project which may result in delayed work,
incomplete infrastructure delivery, slower delivery of public community spaces, and
ultimately, increased costs to the Districts and the residents they serve.
The requested increase in debt authorization is both reasonable and necessary to reflect
current cost projections, maintain efficient financial planning, and ensure the Districts
can fulfill their commitments to provide public infrastructure. It restores balance
between projected costs and financing capacity while safeguarding against inflationary
and market risks.
2. Authority to Establish Special Improvement Districts. The Districts request approval
to establish and use SID’s (defined above) as a financing tool. SIDs are created and
located within the boundaries of metropolitan district boundaries and are governed by
the board of the metropolitan district that created the SID. Through SIDs, metropolitan
districts have the power to issue assessment lien bonds, which are paid from special
assessments imposed by the SID on property benefiting from such improvements but
paid only during the construction phase through the projects sources and uses. 100%
of assessment liens encumbering any finished lot will be repaid prior to a resident
taking possession of a home. These costs are never assessed against the homeowner in
the manner traditional bonds are. SID boundaries may include all, or a portion of the
property within the metropolitan district. Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
authorizes metropolitan districts to establish SIDs if they are so authorized in the
service plan, or approved in writing by the municipality that approved the service plan.
A summary of SIDs prepared by Piper Sandler & Co is attached hereto as Attachment
3.
While traditional financing through district-wide debt issuance has long been an
accepted tool, it is not always the most equitable or efficient mechanism to allocate
costs. Authorizing the Districts to establish SIDs offers a complementary financing
method that provides flexibility, fairness, and fiscal responsibility.
Granting a metropolitan district authority to establish Special Improvement Districts
strengthens fiscal responsibility and enhances fairness in cost allocation by allowing
debt to be issued where and when it is needed, and provides a well-established,
Page 100 of 176
August 21, 2025
Page 3
transparent tool for financing public improvements. This authority would improve the
district’s ability to plan, fund, and deliver infrastructure in a manner consistent with
Colorado’s policy of encouraging local control, equitable growth, and responsible
development.
As required by the Service Plan Policy, in addition to the above request, the Districts provide the
following information:
1. Summary Development Narrative:
Montava is planned as an extension of City service 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 business 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.
The Project is currently anticipated to contain between 200,000 and 400,000 sf of office for
employment opportunities, and between 70-100 acres of light and green industrial development,
and residential development of approximately 2,750 single family homes and 1,500 multi-family
units in a wide variety of types, sizes, and configurations. The anticipated population at build-out,
which is estimated to occur over 15+ years, is approximately 11,073 persons.
2. Sketch Plan:
A current sketch plan for development within the Districts is attached hereto as Attachment 4.
3. Clear Justification for why the Amendment is needed:
The Districts continue to be an integral part of the financing, operation, and maintenance structure
for the Development. The proposed Amendment enables the Districts to meet their goals and to
provide public infrastructure in a timely and efficient manner. Please see the above request and
justification for the Amendment.
4. Explanation of Public Benefits:
The Service Plan anticipates, in addition to providing public infrastructure, the delivery of a
number of extraordinary direct and indirect public benefits (the “Public Benefits”). The Public
Benefits are described in detail in the Service Plan, and delivery of the Public Benefits was secured
by the Development Agreement to Secure Public Benefits for Planned Unit Development Master
Plan dated December 11, 2020.
5. District proposal and Service Plan Specifics:
Page 101 of 176
August 21, 2025
Page 4
See the above proposed Amendment.
The Districts look forward to working with the City and to assist the City in its review of
the proposed Amendment in a timely manner. We are available to address comments from City
Staff and to having further discussions with the City Council. Should you need any additional
information to assist in your review, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
WBA LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW
Zachary P. White
Shareholder
Page 102 of 176
ATTACHMENT 1
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Page 103 of 176
ATTACHMENT 2
Finance Plan
Page 104 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Larimer County, Colorado
~~~
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025
General Obligation Refunding & Improvement Bonds, Series 2040
~~~
Service Plan
Bond Assumptions Series 2025 Series 2040 Total
Closing Date 12/1/2025 12/1/2040
First Call Date 12/1/2030 12/1/2050
Final Maturity 12/1/2055 12/1/2065
Discharge Date 12/2/2065 12/2/2065
Sources of Funds
Par Amount 43,585,000 258,820,000
Funds on Hand 0 38,180,000
Total 43,585,000 297,000,000
Uses of Funds
Project Fund 31,947,550 235,926,900 267,874,450
Refunding Escrow 0 41,175,000
Capitalized Interest 6,537,750 0
Reserve Fund 0 18,404,000
Surplus Deposit 3,928,000 0
Cost of Issuance 1,171,700 1,494,100
Total 43,585,000 297,000,000
Debt Features
Projected Coverage at Mill Levy Cap 3.25x 1.00x
Tax Status Tax-Exempt Tax-Exempt
Interest Payment Type Current Current
Interest Frequency Semiannual Semiannual
Rating Non-Rated Investment Grade
Coupon (Interest Rate)5.000%3.000%
Annual Trustee Fee $4,000 $4,000
Biennial Reassessment
Residential 6.00%6.00%
Commercial 2.00%2.00%
Tax Authority Assumptions Residential Commercial
Metropolitan District Debt Service Mill Levy Revenue
Service Plan
Service Plan Base Year 2018 2018
Debt Service Mills
Service Plan Mill Levy Cap 40.000 40.000
Specific Ownership Tax 6.00%6.00%
County Treasurer Fee 2.00%2.00%
8/19/2025
1
Page 105 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Development Summary
Residential
SFA SFD - Cottage SFD - Small SFD - Medium SFD - Large MF -Total
Statutory Actual
Value (2025)
$500,000 $625,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $90,000 -
2025 --------
2026 --------
2027 100 25 25 25 -170 -345
2028 126 57 30 4 -198 -415
2029 66 69 37 23 -150 -345
2030 70 24 37 28 ---159
2031 217 30 43 11 -524 -825
2032 292 32 23 23 23 306 -699
2033 16 35 35 35 11 --132
2034 -47 35 35 30 --147
2035 66 55 55 55 15 36 -282
2036 30 42 32 24 8 --136
2037 2 30 30 30 30 --122
2038 80 50 46 37 21 72 -306
2039 9 51 30 3 ---93
2040 68 25 26 25 25 54 -223
2041 -30 1 30 6 --67
2042 -5 -7 ---12
2043 --------
2044 --------
2045 --------
2046 --------
2047 --------
2048 --------
2049 --------
2050 --------
2051 --------
2052 --------
2053 --------
2054 --------
2055 --------
2056 --------
2057 --------
2058 --------
2059 --------
2060 --------
2061 --------
2062 --------
2063 --------
2064 --------
2065 --------
Total Units 1,142 607 485 395 169 1,510 -4,308
Total Statutory
Actual Value $571,000,000 $379,375,000 $339,500,000 $316,000,000 $152,100,000 $135,900,000 -$1,893,875,000
Book7 Dev 8/19/2025
2
Page 106 of 176
Residential
Statutory Actual
Value (2025)
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
Total Units
Total Statutory
Actual Value
Montava Metropolitan District
Development Summary
Commercial
Mixed-Use Commercial Office Business /
Industrial ---Total
$250 $250 $300 $100 ---
--------
1,220 ------1,220
---86,000 ---86,000
15,000 --86,000 ---101,000
15,000 --86,000 ---101,000
16,730 3,647 9,726 86,000 ---116,103
13,130 3,647 9,726 86,000 ---112,503
13,528 3,758 10,020 86,000 ---113,306
11,939 6,939 74,015 86,000 ---178,893
12,325 6,939 74,015 86,000 ---179,279
7,149 18,309 76,258 86,000 ---187,716
14,953 3,738 9,969 86,000 ---114,660
14,513 3,628 9,676 ----27,817
14,513 3,628 9,676 ----27,817
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
150,000 54,233 283,081 860,000 ---1,347,314
$37,500,000 $13,558,250 $84,924,300 $86,000,000 ---$221,982,550
Book7 Dev 8/19/2025
3
Page 107 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Assessed Value
Vacant and Improved Land1 Residential Total
Cumulative Statutory
Actual Value
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Residential Units
Delivered
Biennial
Reassessment Actual Value Assessment Rate Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag
6.00%
2025 0 0 --0 6.700%0 0
2026 11,842,500 0 --0 6.250%0 0
2027 14,064,500 0 345 -123,209,370 6.800%0 0
2028 13,392,500 2,960,625 415 7,392,562 279,855,531 6.800%0 2,960,625
2029 9,830,000 3,516,125 345 -424,820,258 6.800%8,378,237 11,894,362
2030 21,331,000 3,348,125 159 25,489,216 558,840,617 6.800%19,030,176 22,378,301
2031 24,874,000 2,457,500 825 -799,062,322 6.800%28,887,778 31,345,278
2032 9,227,500 5,332,750 699 47,943,739 1,132,730,135 6.800%38,001,162 43,333,912
2033 10,887,500 6,218,500 132 -1,240,845,004 6.800%54,336,238 60,554,738
2034 16,661,500 2,306,875 147 74,450,700 1,445,411,408 6.800%77,025,649 79,332,524
2035 9,005,000 2,721,875 282 -1,648,514,163 6.800%84,377,460 87,099,335
2036 9,175,000 4,165,375 136 98,910,850 1,859,390,869 6.800%98,287,976 102,453,351
2037 15,843,000 2,251,250 122 -1,975,752,054 6.800%112,098,963 114,350,213
2038 5,977,500 2,293,750 306 118,545,123 2,299,243,276 6.800%126,438,579 128,732,329
2039 11,518,500 3,960,750 93 -2,378,115,119 6.800%134,351,140 138,311,890
2040 4,885,000 1,494,375 223 142,686,907 2,675,825,871 6.800%156,348,543 157,842,918
2041 872,500 2,879,625 67 -2,742,886,452 6.800%161,711,828 164,591,453
2042 0 1,221,250 12 164,573,187 2,919,676,746 6.800%181,956,159 183,177,409
2043 0 218,125 --2,919,676,746 6.800%186,516,279 186,734,404
2044 0 0 -175,180,605 3,094,857,350 6.800%198,538,019 198,538,019
2045 0 0 --3,094,857,350 6.800%198,538,019 198,538,019
2046 0 0 -185,691,441 3,280,548,791 6.800%210,450,300 210,450,300
2047 0 0 --3,280,548,791 6.800%210,450,300 210,450,300
2048 0 0 -196,832,927 3,477,381,719 6.800%223,077,318 223,077,318
2049 0 0 --3,477,381,719 6.800%223,077,318 223,077,318
2050 0 0 -208,642,903 3,686,024,622 6.800%236,461,957 236,461,957
2051 0 0 --3,686,024,622 6.800%236,461,957 236,461,957
2052 0 0 -221,161,477 3,907,186,099 6.800%250,649,674 250,649,674
2053 0 0 --3,907,186,099 6.800%250,649,674 250,649,674
2054 0 0 -234,431,166 4,141,617,265 6.800%265,688,655 265,688,655
2055 0 0 --4,141,617,265 6.800%265,688,655 265,688,655
2056 0 0 -248,497,036 4,390,114,301 6.800%281,629,974 281,629,974
2057 0 0 --4,390,114,301 6.800%281,629,974 281,629,974
2058 0 0 -263,406,858 4,653,521,159 6.800%298,527,772 298,527,772
2059 0 0 --4,653,521,159 6.800%298,527,772 298,527,772
2060 0 0 -279,211,270 4,932,732,429 6.800%316,439,439 316,439,439
2061 0 0 --4,932,732,429 6.800%316,439,439 316,439,439
2062 0 0 -295,963,946 5,228,696,375 6.800%335,425,805 335,425,805
2063 0 0 --5,228,696,375 6.800%335,425,805 335,425,805
2064 0 0 -313,721,782 5,542,418,157 6.800%355,551,353 355,551,353
2065 0 0 --5,542,418,157 6.800%355,551,353 355,551,353
Total 4,308 3,302,733,696
1. Vacant land value calculated in year prior to construction as 10% build-out market value
Book7 #1 AV 8/19/2025
4
Page 108 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Revenue
Total District Mill Levy Revenue Expense Total
Assessed Value in
Collection Year Debt Mill Levy1 Debt Mill Levy
Collections
Specific Ownership
Taxes
County Treasurer
Fee Annual Trustee Fee Revenue Available
for Debt Service
40.000 Cap 99.50%6.00%2.00%
2025 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0
2026 0 40.000 0 0 0 (4,000)(4,000)
2027 0 40.000 0 0 0 (4,000)(4,000)
2028 2,960,625 46.400 136,686 8,201 (2,734)(4,000)138,154
2029 11,894,362 43.549 515,401 30,924 (10,308)(4,000)532,017
2030 22,378,301 42.958 956,530 57,392 (19,131)(4,000)990,791
2031 31,345,278 42.670 1,330,823 79,849 (26,616)(4,000)1,380,056
2032 43,333,912 42.851 1,847,616 110,857 (36,952)(4,000)1,917,521
2033 60,554,738 42.769 2,576,889 154,613 (51,538)(4,000)2,675,964
2034 79,332,524 42.471 3,352,455 201,147 (67,049)(4,000)3,482,553
2035 87,099,335 42.479 3,681,429 220,886 (73,629)(4,000)3,824,686
2036 102,453,351 42.517 4,334,278 260,057 (86,686)(4,000)4,503,649
2037 114,350,213 42.433 4,827,918 289,675 (96,558)(4,000)5,017,035
2038 128,732,329 42.425 5,434,168 326,050 (108,683)(4,000)5,647,535
2039 138,311,890 42.469 5,844,575 350,674 (116,891)(4,000)6,074,358
2040 157,842,918 42.391 6,657,704 399,462 (133,154)(4,000)6,920,012
2041 164,591,453 42.424 6,947,673 416,860 (138,953)(4,000)7,221,580
2042 183,177,409 42.380 7,724,229 463,454 (154,485)(4,000)8,029,198
2043 186,734,404 42.358 7,870,086 472,205 (157,402)(4,000)8,180,889
2044 198,538,019 42.353 8,366,626 501,998 (167,333)(4,000)8,697,291
2045 198,538,019 42.353 8,366,626 501,998 (167,333)(4,000)8,697,291
2046 210,450,300 42.353 8,868,623 532,117 (177,372)(4,000)9,219,368
2047 210,450,300 42.353 8,868,623 532,117 (177,372)(4,000)9,219,368
2048 223,077,318 42.353 9,400,741 564,044 (188,015)(4,000)9,772,770
2049 223,077,318 42.353 9,400,741 564,044 (188,015)(4,000)9,772,770
2050 236,461,957 42.353 9,964,785 597,887 (199,296)(4,000)10,359,376
2051 236,461,957 42.353 9,964,785 597,887 (199,296)(4,000)10,359,376
2052 250,649,674 42.353 10,562,672 633,760 (211,253)(4,000)10,981,179
2053 250,649,674 42.353 10,562,672 633,760 (211,253)(4,000)10,981,179
2054 265,688,655 42.353 11,196,432 671,786 (223,929)(4,000)11,640,290
2055 265,688,655 42.353 11,196,432 671,786 (223,929)(4,000)11,640,290
2056 281,629,974 42.353 11,868,218 712,093 (237,364)(4,000)12,338,947
2057 281,629,974 42.353 11,868,218 712,093 (237,364)(4,000)12,338,947
2058 298,527,772 42.353 12,580,312 754,819 (251,606)(4,000)13,079,524
2059 298,527,772 42.353 12,580,312 754,819 (251,606)(4,000)13,079,524
2060 316,439,439 42.353 13,335,130 800,108 (266,703)(4,000)13,864,535
2061 316,439,439 42.353 13,335,130 800,108 (266,703)(4,000)13,864,535
2062 335,425,805 42.353 14,135,238 848,114 (282,705)(4,000)14,696,648
2063 335,425,805 42.353 14,135,238 848,114 (282,705)(4,000)14,696,648
2064 355,551,353 42.353 14,983,352 899,001 (299,667)(4,000)15,578,686
2065 355,551,353 42.353 14,983,352 899,001 (299,667)(4,000)15,578,686
Total 314,562,720 18,873,763 (6,291,254)(160,000)326,985,229
1. Subject to adjustment based on changes in assessment methodology
Book7 #1 Rev 8/19/2025
5
Page 109 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Assessed Value
Vacant and Improved Land1 Commercial Total
Cumulative Statutory
Actual Value
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Commercial SF
Delivered
Biennial
Reassessment Actual Value Assessment Rate Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag
2.00%
2025 30,500 0 --0 27.900%0 0
2026 860,000 0 1,220 -311,100 27.000%0 0
2027 1,235,000 7,625 86,000 -9,258,540 25.000%0 7,625
2028 1,235,000 215,000 101,000 185,171 22,549,630 25.000%77,775 292,775
2029 1,661,205 308,750 101,000 -35,917,667 25.000%2,314,635 2,623,385
2030 1,571,205 308,750 116,103 718,353 54,977,066 25.000%5,637,407 5,946,157
2031 1,592,750 415,301 112,503 -72,671,386 25.000%8,979,417 9,394,718
2032 3,552,400 392,801 113,306 1,453,428 92,420,505 25.000%13,744,266 14,137,068
2033 3,562,050 398,188 178,893 -134,042,532 25.000%18,167,846 18,566,034
2034 3,784,190 888,100 179,279 2,680,851 179,293,178 25.000%23,105,126 23,993,226
2035 1,626,345 890,513 187,716 -225,422,243 25.000%33,510,633 34,401,146
2036 743,805 946,048 114,660 4,508,445 250,152,244 25.000%44,823,294 45,769,342
2037 743,805 406,586 27,817 -259,585,489 25.000%56,355,561 56,762,147
2038 0 185,951 27,817 5,191,710 274,399,110 25.000%62,538,061 62,724,012
2039 0 185,951 --274,399,110 25.000%64,896,372 65,082,324
2040 0 0 -5,487,982 279,887,092 25.000%68,599,778 68,599,778
2041 0 0 --279,887,092 25.000%68,599,778 68,599,778
2042 0 0 -5,597,742 285,484,834 25.000%69,971,773 69,971,773
2043 0 0 --285,484,834 25.000%69,971,773 69,971,773
2044 0 0 -5,709,697 291,194,531 25.000%71,371,209 71,371,209
2045 0 0 --291,194,531 25.000%71,371,209 71,371,209
2046 0 0 -5,823,891 297,018,421 25.000%72,798,633 72,798,633
2047 0 0 --297,018,421 25.000%72,798,633 72,798,633
2048 0 0 -5,940,368 302,958,790 25.000%74,254,605 74,254,605
2049 0 0 --302,958,790 25.000%74,254,605 74,254,605
2050 0 0 -6,059,176 309,017,966 25.000%75,739,697 75,739,697
2051 0 0 --309,017,966 25.000%75,739,697 75,739,697
2052 0 0 -6,180,359 315,198,325 25.000%77,254,491 77,254,491
2053 0 0 --315,198,325 25.000%77,254,491 77,254,491
2054 0 0 -6,303,966 321,502,291 25.000%78,799,581 78,799,581
2055 0 0 --321,502,291 25.000%78,799,581 78,799,581
2056 0 0 -6,430,046 327,932,337 25.000%80,375,573 80,375,573
2057 0 0 --327,932,337 25.000%80,375,573 80,375,573
2058 0 0 -6,558,647 334,490,984 25.000%81,983,084 81,983,084
2059 0 0 --334,490,984 25.000%81,983,084 81,983,084
2060 0 0 -6,689,820 341,180,804 25.000%83,622,746 83,622,746
2061 0 0 --341,180,804 25.000%83,622,746 83,622,746
2062 0 0 -6,823,616 348,004,420 25.000%85,295,201 85,295,201
2063 0 0 --348,004,420 25.000%85,295,201 85,295,201
2064 0 0 -6,960,088 354,964,508 25.000%87,001,105 87,001,105
2065 0 0 --354,964,508 25.000%87,001,105 87,001,105
Total 1,347,314 95,303,355
1. Vacant land value calculated in year prior to construction as 10% build-out market value
Book7 #2 AV 8/19/2025
6
Page 110 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Revenue
Total District Mill Levy Revenue Expense Total
Assessed Value in
Collection Year Debt Mill Levy1 Debt Mill Levy
Collections
Specific Ownership
Taxes
County Treasurer
Fee
Revenue Available
for Debt Service
40.000 Cap 99.50%6.00%2.00%
2025 0 0.000 0 0 0 0
2026 0 40.000 0 0 0 0
2027 7,625 46.400 352 21 (7)366
2028 292,775 46.400 13,517 811 (270)14,058
2029 2,623,385 46.400 121,116 7,267 (2,422)125,961
2030 5,946,157 46.400 274,522 16,471 (5,490)285,503
2031 9,394,718 46.400 433,735 26,024 (8,675)451,085
2032 14,137,068 46.400 652,680 39,161 (13,054)678,787
2033 18,566,034 46.400 857,157 51,429 (17,143)891,443
2034 23,993,226 46.400 1,107,719 66,463 (22,154)1,152,028
2035 34,401,146 46.400 1,588,232 95,294 (31,765)1,651,761
2036 45,769,342 46.400 2,113,079 126,785 (42,262)2,197,602
2037 56,762,147 46.400 2,620,595 157,236 (52,412)2,725,419
2038 62,724,012 46.400 2,895,842 173,751 (57,917)3,011,676
2039 65,082,324 46.400 3,004,721 180,283 (60,094)3,124,910
2040 68,599,778 46.400 3,167,115 190,027 (63,342)3,293,799
2041 68,599,778 46.400 3,167,115 190,027 (63,342)3,293,799
2042 69,971,773 46.400 3,230,457 193,827 (64,609)3,359,675
2043 69,971,773 46.400 3,230,457 193,827 (64,609)3,359,675
2044 71,371,209 46.400 3,295,066 197,704 (65,901)3,426,869
2045 71,371,209 46.400 3,295,066 197,704 (65,901)3,426,869
2046 72,798,633 46.400 3,360,967 201,658 (67,219)3,495,406
2047 72,798,633 46.400 3,360,967 201,658 (67,219)3,495,406
2048 74,254,605 46.400 3,428,187 205,691 (68,564)3,565,314
2049 74,254,605 46.400 3,428,187 205,691 (68,564)3,565,314
2050 75,739,697 46.400 3,496,750 209,805 (69,935)3,636,620
2051 75,739,697 46.400 3,496,750 209,805 (69,935)3,636,620
2052 77,254,491 46.400 3,566,685 214,001 (71,334)3,709,353
2053 77,254,491 46.400 3,566,685 214,001 (71,334)3,709,353
2054 78,799,581 46.400 3,638,019 218,281 (72,760)3,783,540
2055 78,799,581 46.400 3,638,019 218,281 (72,760)3,783,540
2056 80,375,573 46.400 3,710,779 222,647 (74,216)3,859,211
2057 80,375,573 46.400 3,710,779 222,647 (74,216)3,859,211
2058 81,983,084 46.400 3,784,995 227,100 (75,700)3,936,395
2059 81,983,084 46.400 3,784,995 227,100 (75,700)3,936,395
2060 83,622,746 46.400 3,860,695 231,642 (77,214)4,015,123
2061 83,622,746 46.400 3,860,695 231,642 (77,214)4,015,123
2062 85,295,201 46.400 3,937,909 236,275 (78,758)4,095,425
2063 85,295,201 46.400 3,937,909 236,275 (78,758)4,095,425
2064 87,001,105 46.400 4,016,667 241,000 (80,333)4,177,334
2065 87,001,105 46.400 4,016,667 241,000 (80,333)4,177,334
Total 108,671,850 6,520,311 (2,173,437)113,018,724
1. Subject to adjustment based on changes in assessment methodology
Book7 #2 Rev 8/19/2025
7
Page 111 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Debt Service
Total Net Debt Service Surplus Fund Ratio Analysis
Series 2025 Series 2040 Total
Revenue Available
for Debt Service Dated: 12/1/2025 Dated: 12/1/2040 Annual Surplus Funds on Hand
Used as a Source
Cumulative
Balance1 Released Revenue Debt Service
Coverage
Senior Debt to
Assessed Value
Series 2025:
Par: $43,585,000 Par: $258,820,000 39,280,000
Proj: $31,947,550 Proj: $235,926,900 Series 2040:
Escr: $41,175,000 -
2025 0 0 0 0 3,928,000 0 n/a n/a
2026 (4,000)0 0 (4,000)3,924,000 0 n/a n/a
2027 (3,634)0 0 (3,634)3,920,366 0 n/a n/a
2028 152,211 0 0 152,211 4,072,577 0 n/a n/a
2029 657,978 2,179,250 2,179,250 (1,521,272)2,551,306 0 30%n/a
2030 1,276,295 2,179,250 2,179,250 (902,955)1,648,350 0 59%n/a
2031 1,831,140 2,179,250 2,179,250 (348,110)1,300,241 0 84%n/a
2032 2,596,308 2,179,250 2,179,250 417,058 1,717,299 0 119%n/a
2033 3,567,407 2,179,250 2,179,250 1,388,157 3,105,456 0 164%n/a
2034 4,634,582 2,179,250 2,179,250 2,455,332 5,560,787 0 213%n/a
2035 5,476,448 2,179,250 2,179,250 3,297,198 8,857,985 0 251%43%
2036 6,701,251 2,179,250 2,179,250 4,522,001 13,379,986 0 222%38%
2037 7,742,453 2,379,250 2,379,250 5,363,203 18,743,189 0 325%34%
2038 8,659,211 2,664,250 2,664,250 5,994,961 24,738,150 0 325%31%
2039 9,199,268 2,829,500 2,829,500 6,369,768 31,107,918 0 325%27%
2040 10,213,811 3,140,250 0 3,140,250 7,073,561 38,180,000 0 1,479 325%157%
2041 10,515,379 Refunded 10,394,600 10,394,600 120,779 0 120,779 101%140%
2042 11,388,874 11,255,700 11,255,700 133,174 0 133,174 101%135%
2043 11,540,564 11,403,600 11,403,600 136,964 0 136,964 101%125%
2044 12,124,159 11,983,850 11,983,850 140,309 0 140,309 101%123%
2045 12,124,159 11,983,250 11,983,250 140,909 0 140,909 101%114%
2046 12,714,774 12,563,600 12,563,600 151,174 0 151,174 101%111%
2047 12,714,774 12,567,350 12,567,350 147,424 0 147,424 101%103%
2048 13,338,084 13,181,150 13,181,150 156,934 0 156,934 101%100%
2049 13,338,084 13,181,550 13,181,550 156,534 0 156,534 101%91%
2050 13,995,997 13,831,250 13,831,250 164,747 0 164,747 101%88%
2051 13,995,997 13,830,600 13,830,600 165,397 0 165,397 101%80%
2052 14,690,532 14,518,350 14,518,350 172,182 0 172,182 101%77%
2053 14,690,532 14,518,650 14,518,650 171,882 0 171,882 101%69%
2054 15,423,830 15,241,300 15,241,300 182,530 0 182,530 101%65%
2055 15,423,830 15,244,400 15,244,400 179,430 0 179,430 101%58%
2056 16,198,158 16,008,650 16,008,650 189,508 0 189,508 101%54%
2057 16,198,158 16,005,950 16,005,950 192,208 0 192,208 101%47%
2058 17,015,919 16,818,350 16,818,350 197,569 0 197,569 101%43%
2059 17,015,919 16,816,100 16,816,100 199,819 0 199,819 101%37%
2060 17,879,658 17,672,600 17,672,600 207,058 0 207,058 101%32%
2061 17,879,658 17,671,750 17,671,750 207,908 0 207,908 101%26%
2062 18,792,073 18,573,150 18,573,150 218,923 0 218,923 101%21%
2063 18,792,073 18,569,350 18,569,350 222,723 0 222,723 101%15%
2064 19,756,020 19,526,300 19,526,300 229,720 0 229,720 101%10%
2065 19,756,020 19,525,750 19,525,750 230,270 0 230,270 101%0%
Total 440,003,953 28,447,250 372,887,150 401,334,400 38,669,553 38,180,000 4,417,553
1. Assumes $3,928,000 Deposit to Surplus Fund at Closing
Book7 CI Debt Refg 8/19/2025
8
Page 112 of 176
9
Page 113 of 176
10
Page 114 of 176
11
Page 115 of 176
12
Page 116 of 176
13
Page 117 of 176
14
Page 118 of 176
15
Page 119 of 176
16
Page 120 of 176
17
Page 121 of 176
18
Page 122 of 176
19
Page 123 of 176
20
Page 124 of 176
21
Page 125 of 176
22
Page 126 of 176
23
Page 127 of 176
24
Page 128 of 176
ATTACHMENT 3
SID Summary
Page 129 of 176
PIPER SANDLER | 1
Special Improvement District (How)
Bond proceeds fund development
Lots assigned liens
Developer / Homebuilder clears lien Investors repaid
Investors purchase Bonds
Metro District Boundaries Special Improvement District Boundaries
Homebuyers purchase home free of lien
Page 130 of 176
PIPER SANDLER | 2
Special Improvement District (Why)
Tax-exempt rates Higher lending rates
Metro District
Proceeds
Metro District
Proceeds
SID
Proceeds
Other Financing Sources
(bank loans, equity, etc.)
Other Financing
Sources (bank
loans, equity, etc.)
Higher lending ratesTax-exempt rates
Higher lending rates
Traditional Financing Sources
(bank loans, equity, etc.)
Total Project Costs
Total Project Costs
Total Project Costs
Access to tax-exempt
financing lowers cost of
capital allowing lower home
costs
Highest project costs and
cost of capital for projects
Additional access to tax-
exempt financing to further
lower cost of capital;
accelerates development
timeline
Traditional Financing Only
Metro District Financing
Metro District & SID Financing
Highest housing costs
Lower housing costs
Lowest housing costs
Page 131 of 176
ATTACHMENT 4
Sketch Plan
Page 132 of 176
i
176403373.1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN
FOR
MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared by
WBA, P.C.
2154 E. Commons Avenue
Centennial, Colorado 80122
303-858-1800
September __, 2025
Page 133 of 176
ii
176403373.1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT G Public Improvements Cost Estimates
EXHIBIT I Financial Plan
Page 134 of 176
3
176403373.1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Intent.
The Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (the “Service
Plan”) was approved by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) on September 25,
2018. The purpose of the proposed First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan
District Nos. 1-7 is to (1) increase the “Maximum Debt Authorization” established in Section
IX.B.7 of the Service Plan, and (2) to authorize the District to establish Special Improvement
Districts (“SID”) in addition to traditional bond issuances.
The Boards of Directors of the Districts therefore respectfully request, pursuant to this First
Amendment to the Service Plan, that the following amendments be made to the Service Plan (the
“First Amendment”):
II. AMENDMENT
1. Special Improvement Districts:
a. Section VII.B.13 - Special Assessments is amended and replaced in its entirety
as follows: Except as permitted under Section IX.K, the Districts shall not
impose special assessments without the prior written approval of the City
Council.
b. Section IX.K is hereby added to the Service Plan as follows: The Districts may
establish one or more special improvement districts within one or more of the
Districts’ boundaries and may impose a special assessment within the
applicable special improvement district(s) in order to finance all or part of the
costs of any Public Improvements to be constructed or installed that the
Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to finance; provided, however, that
any lien on a property resulting from the imposition of a special assessment
shall be satisfied and cleared prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for any unit, structure or other appurtenance, excluding Public Improvements,
on the property assessed, but in no event later than the transfer of such property
to an End User. Any special assessments imposed by such Districts may be
pledged to the payment of bonds or other obligations of the applicable
District(s) and shall not be considered Debt under this Service Plan.
2. Estimated Public Improvement Costs:
a. The estimated total costs of Public Improvements in Section VIII and Section
IX.B.7 is hereby amended from “Three Hundred Twenty-Five Million One
Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Three Dollars
($325,194,543) in 2018 dollars” to “Three Hundred Ninety-Six Million Two
Hundred Fifteen Thousand Forty-Four Dollars ($396,215,044) in 2025 dollars”
b. Exhibit G to the Service Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety by Exhibit G,
Page 135 of 176
4
176403373.1
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3. Maximum Debt Authorization:
a. The Maximum Debt Authorization established in Section IX.B.7 is hereby
amended from “One Hundred Sixty Three Million Dollars ($163,000,000)” to
“Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Million Dollars ($297,000,000)”.
b. Exhibit I to the Service Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety by Exhibit I,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
III. Except as specifically amended as set forth above, all other provisions of the
Service Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Page 136 of 176
176403373.1
EXHIBIT G
Public Improvement Cost Estimates
Page 137 of 176
JOB NO.DATE:BY:
1230.0001.00 12/18/2024 DAP
No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
$14,750,000
$23,992,100
$91,097,550
$16,851,750
$17,790,500
$28,044,000
$43,009,075
$8,500,000
$49,457,650
$293,492,625
$58,698,525
$44,023,894
$396,215,044
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)
Page 138 of 176
176403373.1
EXHIBIT I
Financing Plan
Page 139 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Larimer County, Colorado
~~~
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025
General Obligation Refunding & Improvement Bonds, Series 2040
~~~
Service Plan
Bond Assumptions Series 2025 Series 2040 Total
Closing Date 12/1/2025 12/1/2040
First Call Date 12/1/2030 12/1/2050
Final Maturity 12/1/2055 12/1/2065
Discharge Date 12/2/2065 12/2/2065
Sources of Funds
Par Amount 43,585,000 258,820,000
Funds on Hand 0 38,180,000
Total 43,585,000 297,000,000
Uses of Funds
Project Fund 31,947,550 235,926,900 267,874,450
Refunding Escrow 0 41,175,000
Capitalized Interest 6,537,750 0
Reserve Fund 0 18,404,000
Surplus Deposit 3,928,000 0
Cost of Issuance 1,171,700 1,494,100
Total 43,585,000 297,000,000
Debt Features
Projected Coverage at Mill Levy Cap 3.25x 1.00x
Tax Status Tax-Exempt Tax-Exempt
Interest Payment Type Current Current
Interest Frequency Semiannual Semiannual
Rating Non-Rated Investment Grade
Coupon (Interest Rate)5.000%3.000%
Annual Trustee Fee $4,000 $4,000
Biennial Reassessment
Residential 6.00%6.00%
Commercial 2.00%2.00%
Tax Authority Assumptions Residential Commercial
Metropolitan District Debt Service Mill Levy Revenue
Service Plan
Service Plan Base Year 2018 2018
Debt Service Mills
Service Plan Mill Levy Cap 40.000 40.000
Specific Ownership Tax 6.00%6.00%
County Treasurer Fee 2.00%2.00%
8/19/2025
1
Page 140 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Development Summary
Residential
SFA SFD - Cottage SFD - Small SFD - Medium SFD - Large MF -Total
Statutory Actual
Value (2025)
$500,000 $625,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $90,000 -
2025 --------
2026 --------
2027 100 25 25 25 -170 -345
2028 126 57 30 4 -198 -415
2029 66 69 37 23 -150 -345
2030 70 24 37 28 ---159
2031 217 30 43 11 -524 -825
2032 292 32 23 23 23 306 -699
2033 16 35 35 35 11 --132
2034 -47 35 35 30 --147
2035 66 55 55 55 15 36 -282
2036 30 42 32 24 8 --136
2037 2 30 30 30 30 --122
2038 80 50 46 37 21 72 -306
2039 9 51 30 3 ---93
2040 68 25 26 25 25 54 -223
2041 -30 1 30 6 --67
2042 -5 -7 ---12
2043 --------
2044 --------
2045 --------
2046 --------
2047 --------
2048 --------
2049 --------
2050 --------
2051 --------
2052 --------
2053 --------
2054 --------
2055 --------
2056 --------
2057 --------
2058 --------
2059 --------
2060 --------
2061 --------
2062 --------
2063 --------
2064 --------
2065 --------
Total Units 1,142 607 485 395 169 1,510 -4,308
Total Statutory
Actual Value $571,000,000 $379,375,000 $339,500,000 $316,000,000 $152,100,000 $135,900,000 -$1,893,875,000
Book7 Dev 8/19/2025
2
Page 141 of 176
Residential
Statutory Actual
Value (2025)
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
Total Units
Total Statutory
Actual Value
Montava Metropolitan District
Development Summary
Commercial
Mixed-Use Commercial Office Business /
Industrial ---Total
$250 $250 $300 $100 ---
--------
1,220 ------1,220
---86,000 ---86,000
15,000 --86,000 ---101,000
15,000 --86,000 ---101,000
16,730 3,647 9,726 86,000 ---116,103
13,130 3,647 9,726 86,000 ---112,503
13,528 3,758 10,020 86,000 ---113,306
11,939 6,939 74,015 86,000 ---178,893
12,325 6,939 74,015 86,000 ---179,279
7,149 18,309 76,258 86,000 ---187,716
14,953 3,738 9,969 86,000 ---114,660
14,513 3,628 9,676 ----27,817
14,513 3,628 9,676 ----27,817
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------
150,000 54,233 283,081 860,000 ---1,347,314
$37,500,000 $13,558,250 $84,924,300 $86,000,000 ---$221,982,550
Book7 Dev 8/19/2025
3
Page 142 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Assessed Value
Vacant and Improved Land1 Residential Total
Cumulative Statutory
Actual Value
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Residential Units
Delivered
Biennial
Reassessment Actual Value Assessment Rate Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag
6.00%
2025 0 0 --0 6.700%0 0
2026 11,842,500 0 --0 6.250%0 0
2027 14,064,500 0 345 -123,209,370 6.800%0 0
2028 13,392,500 2,960,625 415 7,392,562 279,855,531 6.800%0 2,960,625
2029 9,830,000 3,516,125 345 -424,820,258 6.800%8,378,237 11,894,362
2030 21,331,000 3,348,125 159 25,489,216 558,840,617 6.800%19,030,176 22,378,301
2031 24,874,000 2,457,500 825 -799,062,322 6.800%28,887,778 31,345,278
2032 9,227,500 5,332,750 699 47,943,739 1,132,730,135 6.800%38,001,162 43,333,912
2033 10,887,500 6,218,500 132 -1,240,845,004 6.800%54,336,238 60,554,738
2034 16,661,500 2,306,875 147 74,450,700 1,445,411,408 6.800%77,025,649 79,332,524
2035 9,005,000 2,721,875 282 -1,648,514,163 6.800%84,377,460 87,099,335
2036 9,175,000 4,165,375 136 98,910,850 1,859,390,869 6.800%98,287,976 102,453,351
2037 15,843,000 2,251,250 122 -1,975,752,054 6.800%112,098,963 114,350,213
2038 5,977,500 2,293,750 306 118,545,123 2,299,243,276 6.800%126,438,579 128,732,329
2039 11,518,500 3,960,750 93 -2,378,115,119 6.800%134,351,140 138,311,890
2040 4,885,000 1,494,375 223 142,686,907 2,675,825,871 6.800%156,348,543 157,842,918
2041 872,500 2,879,625 67 -2,742,886,452 6.800%161,711,828 164,591,453
2042 0 1,221,250 12 164,573,187 2,919,676,746 6.800%181,956,159 183,177,409
2043 0 218,125 --2,919,676,746 6.800%186,516,279 186,734,404
2044 0 0 -175,180,605 3,094,857,350 6.800%198,538,019 198,538,019
2045 0 0 --3,094,857,350 6.800%198,538,019 198,538,019
2046 0 0 -185,691,441 3,280,548,791 6.800%210,450,300 210,450,300
2047 0 0 --3,280,548,791 6.800%210,450,300 210,450,300
2048 0 0 -196,832,927 3,477,381,719 6.800%223,077,318 223,077,318
2049 0 0 --3,477,381,719 6.800%223,077,318 223,077,318
2050 0 0 -208,642,903 3,686,024,622 6.800%236,461,957 236,461,957
2051 0 0 --3,686,024,622 6.800%236,461,957 236,461,957
2052 0 0 -221,161,477 3,907,186,099 6.800%250,649,674 250,649,674
2053 0 0 --3,907,186,099 6.800%250,649,674 250,649,674
2054 0 0 -234,431,166 4,141,617,265 6.800%265,688,655 265,688,655
2055 0 0 --4,141,617,265 6.800%265,688,655 265,688,655
2056 0 0 -248,497,036 4,390,114,301 6.800%281,629,974 281,629,974
2057 0 0 --4,390,114,301 6.800%281,629,974 281,629,974
2058 0 0 -263,406,858 4,653,521,159 6.800%298,527,772 298,527,772
2059 0 0 --4,653,521,159 6.800%298,527,772 298,527,772
2060 0 0 -279,211,270 4,932,732,429 6.800%316,439,439 316,439,439
2061 0 0 --4,932,732,429 6.800%316,439,439 316,439,439
2062 0 0 -295,963,946 5,228,696,375 6.800%335,425,805 335,425,805
2063 0 0 --5,228,696,375 6.800%335,425,805 335,425,805
2064 0 0 -313,721,782 5,542,418,157 6.800%355,551,353 355,551,353
2065 0 0 --5,542,418,157 6.800%355,551,353 355,551,353
Total 4,308 3,302,733,696
1. Vacant land value calculated in year prior to construction as 10% build-out market value
Book7 #1 AV 8/19/2025
4
Page 143 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Revenue
Total District Mill Levy Revenue Expense Total
Assessed Value in
Collection Year Debt Mill Levy1 Debt Mill Levy
Collections
Specific Ownership
Taxes
County Treasurer
Fee Annual Trustee Fee Revenue Available
for Debt Service
40.000 Cap 99.50%6.00%2.00%
2025 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0
2026 0 40.000 0 0 0 (4,000)(4,000)
2027 0 40.000 0 0 0 (4,000)(4,000)
2028 2,960,625 46.400 136,686 8,201 (2,734)(4,000)138,154
2029 11,894,362 43.549 515,401 30,924 (10,308)(4,000)532,017
2030 22,378,301 42.958 956,530 57,392 (19,131)(4,000)990,791
2031 31,345,278 42.670 1,330,823 79,849 (26,616)(4,000)1,380,056
2032 43,333,912 42.851 1,847,616 110,857 (36,952)(4,000)1,917,521
2033 60,554,738 42.769 2,576,889 154,613 (51,538)(4,000)2,675,964
2034 79,332,524 42.471 3,352,455 201,147 (67,049)(4,000)3,482,553
2035 87,099,335 42.479 3,681,429 220,886 (73,629)(4,000)3,824,686
2036 102,453,351 42.517 4,334,278 260,057 (86,686)(4,000)4,503,649
2037 114,350,213 42.433 4,827,918 289,675 (96,558)(4,000)5,017,035
2038 128,732,329 42.425 5,434,168 326,050 (108,683)(4,000)5,647,535
2039 138,311,890 42.469 5,844,575 350,674 (116,891)(4,000)6,074,358
2040 157,842,918 42.391 6,657,704 399,462 (133,154)(4,000)6,920,012
2041 164,591,453 42.424 6,947,673 416,860 (138,953)(4,000)7,221,580
2042 183,177,409 42.380 7,724,229 463,454 (154,485)(4,000)8,029,198
2043 186,734,404 42.358 7,870,086 472,205 (157,402)(4,000)8,180,889
2044 198,538,019 42.353 8,366,626 501,998 (167,333)(4,000)8,697,291
2045 198,538,019 42.353 8,366,626 501,998 (167,333)(4,000)8,697,291
2046 210,450,300 42.353 8,868,623 532,117 (177,372)(4,000)9,219,368
2047 210,450,300 42.353 8,868,623 532,117 (177,372)(4,000)9,219,368
2048 223,077,318 42.353 9,400,741 564,044 (188,015)(4,000)9,772,770
2049 223,077,318 42.353 9,400,741 564,044 (188,015)(4,000)9,772,770
2050 236,461,957 42.353 9,964,785 597,887 (199,296)(4,000)10,359,376
2051 236,461,957 42.353 9,964,785 597,887 (199,296)(4,000)10,359,376
2052 250,649,674 42.353 10,562,672 633,760 (211,253)(4,000)10,981,179
2053 250,649,674 42.353 10,562,672 633,760 (211,253)(4,000)10,981,179
2054 265,688,655 42.353 11,196,432 671,786 (223,929)(4,000)11,640,290
2055 265,688,655 42.353 11,196,432 671,786 (223,929)(4,000)11,640,290
2056 281,629,974 42.353 11,868,218 712,093 (237,364)(4,000)12,338,947
2057 281,629,974 42.353 11,868,218 712,093 (237,364)(4,000)12,338,947
2058 298,527,772 42.353 12,580,312 754,819 (251,606)(4,000)13,079,524
2059 298,527,772 42.353 12,580,312 754,819 (251,606)(4,000)13,079,524
2060 316,439,439 42.353 13,335,130 800,108 (266,703)(4,000)13,864,535
2061 316,439,439 42.353 13,335,130 800,108 (266,703)(4,000)13,864,535
2062 335,425,805 42.353 14,135,238 848,114 (282,705)(4,000)14,696,648
2063 335,425,805 42.353 14,135,238 848,114 (282,705)(4,000)14,696,648
2064 355,551,353 42.353 14,983,352 899,001 (299,667)(4,000)15,578,686
2065 355,551,353 42.353 14,983,352 899,001 (299,667)(4,000)15,578,686
Total 314,562,720 18,873,763 (6,291,254)(160,000)326,985,229
1. Subject to adjustment based on changes in assessment methodology
Book7 #1 Rev 8/19/2025
5
Page 144 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Assessed Value
Vacant and Improved Land1 Commercial Total
Cumulative Statutory
Actual Value
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Commercial SF
Delivered
Biennial
Reassessment Actual Value Assessment Rate Assessed Value in
Collection Year
Assessed Value in
Collection Year
2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag 2 Year Lag
2.00%
2025 30,500 0 --0 27.900%0 0
2026 860,000 0 1,220 -311,100 27.000%0 0
2027 1,235,000 7,625 86,000 -9,258,540 25.000%0 7,625
2028 1,235,000 215,000 101,000 185,171 22,549,630 25.000%77,775 292,775
2029 1,661,205 308,750 101,000 -35,917,667 25.000%2,314,635 2,623,385
2030 1,571,205 308,750 116,103 718,353 54,977,066 25.000%5,637,407 5,946,157
2031 1,592,750 415,301 112,503 -72,671,386 25.000%8,979,417 9,394,718
2032 3,552,400 392,801 113,306 1,453,428 92,420,505 25.000%13,744,266 14,137,068
2033 3,562,050 398,188 178,893 -134,042,532 25.000%18,167,846 18,566,034
2034 3,784,190 888,100 179,279 2,680,851 179,293,178 25.000%23,105,126 23,993,226
2035 1,626,345 890,513 187,716 -225,422,243 25.000%33,510,633 34,401,146
2036 743,805 946,048 114,660 4,508,445 250,152,244 25.000%44,823,294 45,769,342
2037 743,805 406,586 27,817 -259,585,489 25.000%56,355,561 56,762,147
2038 0 185,951 27,817 5,191,710 274,399,110 25.000%62,538,061 62,724,012
2039 0 185,951 --274,399,110 25.000%64,896,372 65,082,324
2040 0 0 -5,487,982 279,887,092 25.000%68,599,778 68,599,778
2041 0 0 --279,887,092 25.000%68,599,778 68,599,778
2042 0 0 -5,597,742 285,484,834 25.000%69,971,773 69,971,773
2043 0 0 --285,484,834 25.000%69,971,773 69,971,773
2044 0 0 -5,709,697 291,194,531 25.000%71,371,209 71,371,209
2045 0 0 --291,194,531 25.000%71,371,209 71,371,209
2046 0 0 -5,823,891 297,018,421 25.000%72,798,633 72,798,633
2047 0 0 --297,018,421 25.000%72,798,633 72,798,633
2048 0 0 -5,940,368 302,958,790 25.000%74,254,605 74,254,605
2049 0 0 --302,958,790 25.000%74,254,605 74,254,605
2050 0 0 -6,059,176 309,017,966 25.000%75,739,697 75,739,697
2051 0 0 --309,017,966 25.000%75,739,697 75,739,697
2052 0 0 -6,180,359 315,198,325 25.000%77,254,491 77,254,491
2053 0 0 --315,198,325 25.000%77,254,491 77,254,491
2054 0 0 -6,303,966 321,502,291 25.000%78,799,581 78,799,581
2055 0 0 --321,502,291 25.000%78,799,581 78,799,581
2056 0 0 -6,430,046 327,932,337 25.000%80,375,573 80,375,573
2057 0 0 --327,932,337 25.000%80,375,573 80,375,573
2058 0 0 -6,558,647 334,490,984 25.000%81,983,084 81,983,084
2059 0 0 --334,490,984 25.000%81,983,084 81,983,084
2060 0 0 -6,689,820 341,180,804 25.000%83,622,746 83,622,746
2061 0 0 --341,180,804 25.000%83,622,746 83,622,746
2062 0 0 -6,823,616 348,004,420 25.000%85,295,201 85,295,201
2063 0 0 --348,004,420 25.000%85,295,201 85,295,201
2064 0 0 -6,960,088 354,964,508 25.000%87,001,105 87,001,105
2065 0 0 --354,964,508 25.000%87,001,105 87,001,105
Total 1,347,314 95,303,355
1. Vacant land value calculated in year prior to construction as 10% build-out market value
Book7 #2 AV 8/19/2025
6
Page 145 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Revenue
Total District Mill Levy Revenue Expense Total
Assessed Value in
Collection Year Debt Mill Levy1 Debt Mill Levy
Collections
Specific Ownership
Taxes
County Treasurer
Fee
Revenue Available
for Debt Service
40.000 Cap 99.50%6.00%2.00%
2025 0 0.000 0 0 0 0
2026 0 40.000 0 0 0 0
2027 7,625 46.400 352 21 (7)366
2028 292,775 46.400 13,517 811 (270)14,058
2029 2,623,385 46.400 121,116 7,267 (2,422)125,961
2030 5,946,157 46.400 274,522 16,471 (5,490)285,503
2031 9,394,718 46.400 433,735 26,024 (8,675)451,085
2032 14,137,068 46.400 652,680 39,161 (13,054)678,787
2033 18,566,034 46.400 857,157 51,429 (17,143)891,443
2034 23,993,226 46.400 1,107,719 66,463 (22,154)1,152,028
2035 34,401,146 46.400 1,588,232 95,294 (31,765)1,651,761
2036 45,769,342 46.400 2,113,079 126,785 (42,262)2,197,602
2037 56,762,147 46.400 2,620,595 157,236 (52,412)2,725,419
2038 62,724,012 46.400 2,895,842 173,751 (57,917)3,011,676
2039 65,082,324 46.400 3,004,721 180,283 (60,094)3,124,910
2040 68,599,778 46.400 3,167,115 190,027 (63,342)3,293,799
2041 68,599,778 46.400 3,167,115 190,027 (63,342)3,293,799
2042 69,971,773 46.400 3,230,457 193,827 (64,609)3,359,675
2043 69,971,773 46.400 3,230,457 193,827 (64,609)3,359,675
2044 71,371,209 46.400 3,295,066 197,704 (65,901)3,426,869
2045 71,371,209 46.400 3,295,066 197,704 (65,901)3,426,869
2046 72,798,633 46.400 3,360,967 201,658 (67,219)3,495,406
2047 72,798,633 46.400 3,360,967 201,658 (67,219)3,495,406
2048 74,254,605 46.400 3,428,187 205,691 (68,564)3,565,314
2049 74,254,605 46.400 3,428,187 205,691 (68,564)3,565,314
2050 75,739,697 46.400 3,496,750 209,805 (69,935)3,636,620
2051 75,739,697 46.400 3,496,750 209,805 (69,935)3,636,620
2052 77,254,491 46.400 3,566,685 214,001 (71,334)3,709,353
2053 77,254,491 46.400 3,566,685 214,001 (71,334)3,709,353
2054 78,799,581 46.400 3,638,019 218,281 (72,760)3,783,540
2055 78,799,581 46.400 3,638,019 218,281 (72,760)3,783,540
2056 80,375,573 46.400 3,710,779 222,647 (74,216)3,859,211
2057 80,375,573 46.400 3,710,779 222,647 (74,216)3,859,211
2058 81,983,084 46.400 3,784,995 227,100 (75,700)3,936,395
2059 81,983,084 46.400 3,784,995 227,100 (75,700)3,936,395
2060 83,622,746 46.400 3,860,695 231,642 (77,214)4,015,123
2061 83,622,746 46.400 3,860,695 231,642 (77,214)4,015,123
2062 85,295,201 46.400 3,937,909 236,275 (78,758)4,095,425
2063 85,295,201 46.400 3,937,909 236,275 (78,758)4,095,425
2064 87,001,105 46.400 4,016,667 241,000 (80,333)4,177,334
2065 87,001,105 46.400 4,016,667 241,000 (80,333)4,177,334
Total 108,671,850 6,520,311 (2,173,437)113,018,724
1. Subject to adjustment based on changes in assessment methodology
Book7 #2 Rev 8/19/2025
7
Page 146 of 176
Montava Metropolitan District
Debt Service
Total Net Debt Service Surplus Fund Ratio Analysis
Series 2025 Series 2040 Total
Revenue Available
for Debt Service Dated: 12/1/2025 Dated: 12/1/2040 Annual Surplus Funds on Hand
Used as a Source
Cumulative
Balance1 Released Revenue Debt Service
Coverage
Senior Debt to
Assessed Value
Series 2025:
Par: $43,585,000 Par: $258,820,000 39,280,000
Proj: $31,947,550 Proj: $235,926,900 Series 2040:
Escr: $41,175,000 -
2025 0 0 0 0 3,928,000 0 n/a n/a
2026 (4,000)0 0 (4,000)3,924,000 0 n/a n/a
2027 (3,634)0 0 (3,634)3,920,366 0 n/a n/a
2028 152,211 0 0 152,211 4,072,577 0 n/a n/a
2029 657,978 2,179,250 2,179,250 (1,521,272)2,551,306 0 30%n/a
2030 1,276,295 2,179,250 2,179,250 (902,955)1,648,350 0 59%n/a
2031 1,831,140 2,179,250 2,179,250 (348,110)1,300,241 0 84%n/a
2032 2,596,308 2,179,250 2,179,250 417,058 1,717,299 0 119%n/a
2033 3,567,407 2,179,250 2,179,250 1,388,157 3,105,456 0 164%n/a
2034 4,634,582 2,179,250 2,179,250 2,455,332 5,560,787 0 213%n/a
2035 5,476,448 2,179,250 2,179,250 3,297,198 8,857,985 0 251%43%
2036 6,701,251 2,179,250 2,179,250 4,522,001 13,379,986 0 222%38%
2037 7,742,453 2,379,250 2,379,250 5,363,203 18,743,189 0 325%34%
2038 8,659,211 2,664,250 2,664,250 5,994,961 24,738,150 0 325%31%
2039 9,199,268 2,829,500 2,829,500 6,369,768 31,107,918 0 325%27%
2040 10,213,811 3,140,250 0 3,140,250 7,073,561 38,180,000 0 1,479 325%157%
2041 10,515,379 Refunded 10,394,600 10,394,600 120,779 0 120,779 101%140%
2042 11,388,874 11,255,700 11,255,700 133,174 0 133,174 101%135%
2043 11,540,564 11,403,600 11,403,600 136,964 0 136,964 101%125%
2044 12,124,159 11,983,850 11,983,850 140,309 0 140,309 101%123%
2045 12,124,159 11,983,250 11,983,250 140,909 0 140,909 101%114%
2046 12,714,774 12,563,600 12,563,600 151,174 0 151,174 101%111%
2047 12,714,774 12,567,350 12,567,350 147,424 0 147,424 101%103%
2048 13,338,084 13,181,150 13,181,150 156,934 0 156,934 101%100%
2049 13,338,084 13,181,550 13,181,550 156,534 0 156,534 101%91%
2050 13,995,997 13,831,250 13,831,250 164,747 0 164,747 101%88%
2051 13,995,997 13,830,600 13,830,600 165,397 0 165,397 101%80%
2052 14,690,532 14,518,350 14,518,350 172,182 0 172,182 101%77%
2053 14,690,532 14,518,650 14,518,650 171,882 0 171,882 101%69%
2054 15,423,830 15,241,300 15,241,300 182,530 0 182,530 101%65%
2055 15,423,830 15,244,400 15,244,400 179,430 0 179,430 101%58%
2056 16,198,158 16,008,650 16,008,650 189,508 0 189,508 101%54%
2057 16,198,158 16,005,950 16,005,950 192,208 0 192,208 101%47%
2058 17,015,919 16,818,350 16,818,350 197,569 0 197,569 101%43%
2059 17,015,919 16,816,100 16,816,100 199,819 0 199,819 101%37%
2060 17,879,658 17,672,600 17,672,600 207,058 0 207,058 101%32%
2061 17,879,658 17,671,750 17,671,750 207,908 0 207,908 101%26%
2062 18,792,073 18,573,150 18,573,150 218,923 0 218,923 101%21%
2063 18,792,073 18,569,350 18,569,350 222,723 0 222,723 101%15%
2064 19,756,020 19,526,300 19,526,300 229,720 0 229,720 101%10%
2065 19,756,020 19,525,750 19,525,750 230,270 0 230,270 101%0%
Total 440,003,953 28,447,250 372,887,150 401,334,400 38,669,553 38,180,000 4,417,553
1. Assumes $3,928,000 Deposit to Surplus Fund at Closing
Book7 CI Debt Refg 8/19/2025
8
Page 147 of 176
9
Page 148 of 176
10
Page 149 of 176
11
Page 150 of 176
12
Page 151 of 176
13
Page 152 of 176
14
Page 153 of 176
15
Page 154 of 176
16
Page 155 of 176
17
Page 156 of 176
18
Page 157 of 176
19
Page 158 of 176
20
Page 159 of 176
21
Page 160 of 176
22
Page 161 of 176
23
Page 162 of 176
24
Page 163 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
Deputy Director,
Sustainability Services
Josh Birks
Proposed 1st
Amendment to the
Montava Metro
District
10-02-2025
Page 164 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereFeedback Requested
•What questions does the committee have about the requested
Amendment?
•What additional information should be available for the full Council
before or during consideration of the proposed Amendment?
•Does the Committee concur with Staff’s recommended approach to
processing this Amendment?
Page 165 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereProject Overview
3
988.5 Acres
2,000 Single Family Home
2,400 Multi-family Unit
200,000 to 400,000 square
feet office
88,900 square feet retail
10 percent of housing – mix
of for-rent and for-sale
affordable housing
Page 166 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereBackground
4
The Consolidated Service Plan (Service Plan) for Montava
Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 approved by Council
September 25, 2018 (Resolution 2018-083)
Mill Levy Cap – 60 mills; 40 debt and 20 operating
Max Debt Authorization - $163 million
Estimate public improvement cost - $325 million
Regional Mill Levy – 5 mills
Development Agreement to Secure Public Benefits for Planned
Unit Development Master Plan approved by Council
January 14, 2020 (Resolution 2020-007)
Signed and Executed – December 11, 2020
Large-scale comprehensive master plan (smart growth)
Agri-Urban Development
Zero Energy Ready
Non-potable Water System
Affordable Housing – 15 percent between 30% and 120% AMI
50% of affordable (300+) at 30% to 80% AMI
Page 167 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereRequested Amendment
5
Increase Maximum Debt Authorization – from
$163 million to $297 million; offset the increase
in construction costs since 2018
Grant Authority to Establish Special
Improvement Districts (SIDS) – Enable the use
of a tool that may create more equitable and
efficient mechanism for allocating and financing
some portion of public improvement costs
Page 168 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereOverview of Staff Review
6
•Public Benefits – Nothing in the proposed
Amendment alters the pledged benefits nor
impacts the ability of the project to deliver those
benefits
•Rationale for Amendment – Staff recognizes
importance of Metro District as a financing tool
•Specific aspects of the Amendment –
Presented in greater detail on subsequent slides
Conclusion – Staff sees no reason to refuse the
requested amendment
Page 169 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereMaximum Debt Authorization
7
Request: $134 million increase to $297 million
•75% of estimated $396 million in public improvement costs
Policy Analysis:
•Policy caps debt authorization at 100 percent of supportable
•Requested amount is within the policy cap
•Drive home now impact to mill levies
Additional Considerations:
•Public improvement categories remain consistent
•Increase of estimated public improvement costs = 22 percent
over seven (7) years, equivalent of approximately 3.1%
annually
•Increase is consistent with changes in construction costs for
the same period
Conclusion – Increase is consistent with policy,
reasonable in amount, and funds consistent
improvements
Page 170 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Estimated Public Improvement Cost Details
Item 2018
Estimate
Revised
Estimate Difference
Admin., Misc., & Engineering $47.00 $58.77 $11.77
Earthwork $21.50 $23.99 $2.49
Streets $105.30 $91.10 ($14.20)
Sanitary Sewer $15.70 $16.85 $1.15
Water $11.10 $17.79 $6.69
Nonpotable Water $13.80 $28.04 $14.42
Storm Sewer $10.20 $43.01 $32.81
Recreation $8.00 $8.50 $0.50
Landscaping, Trails, Open Space, & Farm Facilities $44.20 $49.46 $5.26
Contingency $48.00 $58.70 $10.7
Total $325.00 $396.22 $71.22
Page 171 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereAuthority to Establish SIDs
9
SID – legal sub-area where property owners are assessed for
public improvements that specifically benefit those properties
Authorized by statute:
Limited to strict benefit nexus
Requires consent of 100% of property owners or majority of
eligible electors
May only be used to finance improvements authorized by the
Metro District Service Plan (e.g., Public Improvements)
Cannot be used outside the powers of the Metro District
Require notice, hearings, etc. like the Metro District
Amendment Further Limits: All assessments and associated
liens must be “satisfied and cleared prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy”
Conclusion – No clear reason to deny the
request; enables flexibility
Page 172 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereReview Process Overivew
10
•Letter of Interest (Include) – Initiates the review process
•Staff Response to LOI (Modify) – Staff elected to contact the
applicant directly and conduct a preliminary meeting rather than
prepare a formal written response. Preliminary Staff Meeting with Applicant (Include) – As stated above, staff used this meeting in lieu
of a formal written response.
•City Council Conceptual Review (Exclude) – The policy intends for
this conceptual review to provide Council an opportunity to
understand the project and the extraordinary public benefits it will
generate. Neither are changing.
•Formal Application & Submittal (Modify) –Staff have received the
Amendment and a draft of it is included with this document.
•Formal Staff Review (Modify) –Staff and the City Attorney’s Office
conducted a thorough review of the Amendment and discussed it
with Finance staff.
•Council Finance Committee Meeting (Include) – Logical step:
•(1) allowing a sub-section of the Council a preliminary review
•(2) Amendment is primarily financial
•Public Hearing Notice (Include) – Required by statute and Policy
•Council Public Hearing (Include) – Required by statute and Policy
Page 173 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Scoring System
11
•Approval predates the system – therefore not applied
originally
•Council postponed consideration of the Service plan twice
to adjust public benefits
•When adopted, Council limited the ability of the Metro
District to issue debt, collect the debt mill levy, or charge
fees to pay debt until an approved agreement secured the
public benefits
•Council reviewed and adopted a Public Benefits
Agreement on January 14, 2020 (Resolution 2020-007)
Conclusion – Council has already adopted PBA
which is not changing; therefore, no reason to re-
evaluate those benefits with the scoring system
Page 174 of 176
Headline Copy Goes HereFeedback Requested
•What questions does the committee have about the requested
Amendment?
•What additional information should be available for the full Council
before or during consideration of the proposed Amendment?
•Does the Committee concur with Staff’s recommended approach to
processing this Amendment?
Conclusion – Staff recommends forwarding the amendment to Council for
consideration, including any of the committee’s feedback
Page 175 of 176
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 176 of 176