Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.20.2000BOCC 03/20/00 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT: Rose Ranch Metropolitan District Service Plan. LOCATION: The proposed district is located in portions of Sections 1, and 12, T7S., R89W, and portions of Sections 2, and 35, T6S, R89W; more practically described as an area approximately 3.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs along Highway 82, adjacent to and west of the Roaring Fork River, and adjacent to County Road 109 (Rose Ranch PUD). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing the formation of a Service District to serve a portion of the approved Rose Ranch PUD. This includes 292 single-family residential attached and detached units with an estimated population of 730, but does not include the 30 affordable housing units included in the approved Rose Ranch PUD. The 30 affordable housing units are not to be included in the District to avoid the increased costs to the affordable units which would result, should they be included . The District is proposed to include parks and recreational facilities, within and without the boundaries of the district; street improvements, both on-site and off-site; a complete potable and non -potable local water supply, storage, transmission, and distribution system; and, a complete local sanitary sewage collection and transmission system. The parks, recreational facilities, street improvements, and storm and drainage facilities will be maintained by the proposed District. The golf course which will be within the proposed District is to be developed and operated by a private party, and is not anticipated to be owned or maintained by the proposed District. The potable and non -potable water supply as stated by the applicant in their submittal, is to be dedicated to and maintained by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement. This can only occur if the RFWSD amends its service plan to allow for service. The sanitary sewage system except for storm and drainage facilities is to be dedicated to and maintained by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. This will need to be done as per the "Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Roaring Fork Investments, LLC Pre -Inclusion Agreement which was a condition of the approval of the Rose Ranch PUD. The storm and drainage facilities will be dedicated to and maintained by the proposed District. Construction costs for necessary improvements are to be advanced by the developer(s) within the proposed District, subject to subsequent acquisition by the proposed District of the completed improvements and reimbursement to the developer(s) of such advanced construction costs. The -1- total estimated cost of capital improvements to be constructed is not projected to exceed Eight Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($8,750,000). This figure breaks down into $3,151,890 for street and safety system, $2,292,393 for water facilities, $1,560,279 for sewer facilities, $1,245,438 for drainage facilities, and $500,000 for parks and recreation. The applicant also notes that any additional facilities required (not included in this plan), will be designed, constructed and paid for by the Developer. The provision of facilities by the proposed District will be primarily financed by the issuance of several series of general obligation bonds, secured by the ad valorem taxing authority of the proposed District with limitations as discussed in the submitted application. Prior to the issuance of bonds, the first issuance anticipated in 2000, the construction cost for necessary improvements will be advanced by the developer(s) within the proposed District, subject to subsequent acquisition by the proposed District of the completed improvements and reimbursement to the developer(s) of such advanced construction costs. Any obligations issued or otherwise contracted for to reimburse the developer(s) for advanced construction costs shall be included within the debt limits described in the submitted application. The proposed District may also issue notes, certificates, debentures, or other evidences of indebtedness, which issuances shall be subject to the limitations set forth in the Service Plan. The proposed District will have a mill levy assessed on all taxable property in the proposed District as a primary source of revenue repayment of debt service and for operations and maintenance. Interest income through the reinvestment of construction funds, capitalized interest and annual tax receipts will provide additional funds. In addition to property taxes, the District may also rely upon various other revenue sources authorized by law and this Service Plan to offset the expenses of capital construction and District management, operations and maintenance. These will include the power to assess fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges as provided in Title 32, as amended. A Facilities Fee in the amount of nine thousand five hundred dollars ($9,500) will be imposed on each lot within the District to be collected at the time of sale of each lot. II. ISSUES AND COMMENTS A. Colorado Revised Statutes - C.R.S. 32-1-101, et. seq. Within 30 days of the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder, the Clerk and Recorder is required to deliver the service plan to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to take one of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. -2- The applicant agreed to wave the 30 day requirement and allow for the application to be heard before the Garfield County Planning Commission on February 9, 2000 (See letter p. 10). The Board of County Commissioners "shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented": 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not presented: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1- 204(1). 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S.. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. The following are responses to the statutory criteria: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. At this time, the Rose Ranch PUD Final Plat and accompanying documents have not been recorded. However, with approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Rose Ranch PUD from the Board of County Commissioners it is assumed that the Final Plat and accompanying documents will be recorded and therefore there is sufficient existing and projected need for the District. Since the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, -3- 2000, the Service Plan has been amended to include text which will ensure that the Rose Ranch Final Plat and accompanying documents will be recorded prior to the formation of the proposed District. This will satisfy this requirement. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement which is part of the Rose Ranch PUD states that "the homeowners association shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of those roads." This will have to be amended to dedicate the roads to the proposed District and not the homeowners association. Other sections within the SIA which do not expressly dedicate improvements to the proposed District other than those improvements to be dedicated to the RFWSD must be amended to dedicate improvements to the proposed District. Further, the Rose Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan may need to be amended to reflect the need to dedicate improvements not dedicated to the RFWSD to the proposed District. Since the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2000, language to this effect has been added to the Service Plan and is satisfactory to satisfy this need. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. At this time, neither the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District nor the County intend to expand services at their own expense to accommodate the Rose Ranch PUD. However, as the applicant states, the water and sanitation services to be constructed will be dedicated to the RFWSD upon completion. To dedicate the potable and non -potable water supply to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, for them to maintain, as proposed by the applicant, would require an amendment to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Service Plan, to allow for such an undertaking. Until such time as such an amendment to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Service Plan is completed, the potable and non -potable water supply proposed as part of the Service Plan for the Rose Ranch Metropolitan District must be maintained by the proposed District. Further, no Intergovernmental Agreement pertaining to this has been entered into at this time, since the RFWSD does not have the authority at this time to enter into an agreement for water. The cost of maintaining the potable and non -potable water supply must be included in cost calculations for the District to ensure the District can pay for such costs until the RFWSD can accept said services as proposed. Since the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2000, the Service Plan has been satisfactorily amended to take into consideration this cost. To dedicate the sanitary sewage system except for storm and drainage facilities as proposed by the applicant, the "Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Roaring Fork Investments, LLC Pre -Inclusion Agreement" which was a condition of approval of the Rose Ranch PUD, must be recorded along with the Rose Ranch PUD. The Service Plan has been amended to satisfy this requirement since the Planning Commission meeting of -4- February 9, 2000. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. With the approval of the Rose Ranch PUD, evidence that sufficient service to the area would be provided was accomplished in general terms. This is now being specifically proposed to be provided by the creation of this District. With the creation of this District sufficient service will be provided. The proposed District facilities will cost an estimated eight million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($8,750,000), with any additional facilities (not currently included in the Service Plan) to be designed, constructed and paid for by the Developer. A uniform mill levy and "reasonable tax burden" on all property within the development is to be maintained through managed financing and coordinated completion of infrastructure improvements. "Through the coordination of services and financing of public infrastructure improvements by the District, the District will be capable of providing economical and sufficient services to the area served by the District." Ultimately, the homeowners living in the district will be responsible for paying off the debt. To provide for the homeowners to be protected from the possible increase in mill levies beyond the maximum of 50 mills as proposed by the applicant, the applicant has included language within the Service Plan, since the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2000 which states, "The District shall not increase the mill levy above 50 mills without the prior written consent of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County." As discussed above, the District must be prepared to accept the costs of the potable and non -potable water supply until such time as the RFWSD can undertake this service. Cost calculations for the District must therefore, include this eventuality. This has been accounted for with amendments to the Service Plan since the Planning Commission meeting. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The District proposes to issue general obligation bonds to assist in financing of the improvements, impose a mill levy with a cap of 50 mills, and impose a Facilities Fee in the amount of nine thousand five hundred dollars ($9,500) on each lot within the District to be collected at the time of sale of each lot. This, along with a detailed financial plan submitted by the applicant demonstrates that the District will be capable of discharging the proposed bonds (debt) on a reasonable -5- basis. The following discussion addresses the reasons the Board of County Commissioners may deny a service plan, if the following is not presented: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. As discussed above, neither the County nor the RFWSD intend to extend services at their own expense to the Rose Ranch PUD now or in the near future. With the approval of the Rose Ranch PUD, and the condition that the Final Plat and accompanying documents will be recorded prior to the District being formed, services are needed. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). The applicant has stated in their submitted report that all facilities will be constructed to the standards of all applicable local, state or federal regulations. This will be a requirement of any approval of this District, and having this information stated within the Service Plan as it has been done satisfies this requirement. 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S.. With the approval of the Rose Ranch PUD, the PUD has been found to be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to this District, the following is offered: The Water and Sewer Services Goal states the following: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development. The following objectives are relevant to the proposed service plan : 7.2 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity in their central water/sewer systems will be strongly encouraged to tie into these systems. -6- The proposed District proposes to dedicate the water and sanitary sewer systems to the RFWSD. At this time, the RFWSD is capable of accepting the sanitary sewer system, however, as discussed previously, to accept the water system, the RFWSD Service Plan will have to be amended. This means that the proposed District will have to be prepared to accept and maintain the water system until such time as the RFWSD has amended its Service Plan to accept it for maintenance. The Service Plan has been amended since the Planning Commission meeting to take into account this eventuality. With the above in mind, the proposed District is in conformance with this policy. 7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water and sewer systems. Mitigation in this sense means paying a fare share of costs. Given that this District is being created, the applicant through the creation and financing of the infrastructure will be adequately mitigating any and all impacts. The following policies are relevant to the proposed service plan : 7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent to or within a reasonable distance, to enter into the appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden of proof regarding logical, legal and economic constraints will be on the developer. The proposed District is proposing to dedicate the water and sanitary sewer systems to RFWSD which will comply with this policy. However, as stated above the RFWSD Service Plan must be amended to allow for the RFWSD to accept the water facilities for maintenance. This means the proposed District will have to maintain the water facilities until such time as the RFWSD has amended its Service Plan. Further, an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District and Roaring Fork Investments, LLC, will have to be entered into. This has been taken into account within the Service Plan. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long- range water quality management plan for the area. At this time, there is a Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) for the Region which was adopted in 1984. The County Engineer has been working on an updated 208 Plan for the County for the last few months, but there is no new document available yet that would support or oppose the development of the proposed District. The existing document and proposed document recommends the consolidation of facilities. The proposed combined water and sewer service with the RFWSD is consistent with the plan. -7- 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. Providing central water and sewer to the Rose Ranch PUD is preferable to individual water and sewer systems. Further, as the applicant states in their submitted report, future expansion of the District to other future development in the area is possible. B. Other Comments: In a letter dated March 1, 2000, (See pgs. 11-14), bond council for the County, Blake Jordan, generally expresses that the submitted Service Plan is acceptable with regard to financial issues. III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended approval of the District with the following conditions: 1. The Service Plan must be amended so that all facilities/improvements not dedicated to the RFWSD will be expressly dedicated to the proposed District and not the Homeowners Association. Further, the administrative costs within the Service Plan must be amended to reflect the cost of these improvements being dedicated to the District. 2. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement which is part of the Rose Ranch PUD must be amended to dedicate all facilities/improvements not dedicated to the RFWSD to the proposed District. The Rose Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan may also need to be amended to reflect the dedication of these facilities/improvements to the proposed District. 3. The Service Plan must be amended so that the proposed maximum mill levy of 50 mills cannot be raised above 50 mills without the approval of the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. 4. The Service Plan must be amended to reflect any changes recommended by the Bond Council for the County. 5. The Final Plat and accompanying documents including but not limited to the "Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Roaring Fork Investments, LLC Pre - Inclusion Agreement" of the Rose Ranch PUD must be recorded before approval of this District. -8- Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has amended the Service Plan to address all of these conditions. Thus, all of the conditions of the Planning Commission approval have been satisfied. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Service Plan for Rose Ranch Metropolitan District with no attached conditions. -9- JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON LORI J. M. SATTERFIELD EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI DAVID SANDOVAL DENDY M. HEISEL JEFFERSON J. CHENEY BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.8902 January 18, 2000 Jeff Laurien, Senior Planner Garfield County Department of Building & Planning 109 8th Street, 3rd Floor Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Rose Ranch Metropolitan Service Plan Dear Mr. Laurien: OF COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMB On December 13, 1999, the Application for Metropolitan District for the Rose Ranch was referred by the Garfield County Commissioners to the Garfield County Planning Commission. I was present at this meeting of the Commissioners and represented to the Board at this time, as attorney for the Applicants, that the Applicants would be willing to waive the thirty (30) day processing time requirement to enable the Planning Commission's consideration of this Application on February 9, 2000. I have since confirmed this waiver with Mr. Ron Heggmeier who is the manager for Roaring Fork Investments, LLC, the present owner of the Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development, which PUD incorporates the entire boundaries of the proposed Metropolitan District. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. TAT:kjk Very truly yours, By ,//.// mo by A. T ulson BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. la 03/02/00 16:20 Sherman & Howard LL.c. ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAw 633 SEYENTRENTII MEM; SUITS 3000 Davi COLORADO 00202 TffiEPHON& 303 291.2900 FAX 303 2994960 OFFICES IN; COLORADO SPRINGS RENO • LAS VEGAS March 1, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 NO.772 1302 Re: Proposed Rose Ranch Metropolitan District Service Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: We are special counsel to the County with respect to the review of the above - referenced Service Plan for the proposed Rose Ranch Metropolitan District (the "District"). This letter is in response to a request from the County Attorney's office to review and comment on the Service Plan, with an emphasis on the financial provisions therein. I. IN GENERAL The District is proposed as a new entity to be approved at the upcoming May election. Unlike the districts about which we have advised the County in the past, this District is what is commonly referred to as a "developer district", in that initially there is a single (usually corporate) property owner, and the District is either totally or mostly undeveloped. As such, its assessed valuation is negligible until development occurs, and its ability to repay any debt issued is wholly dependent upon development. It is this fact that we believe is the most important issue for the County. The goal of the County should be to include in the Service Plan restrictions which will prevent the District from incurring indebtedness in such a manner that may result in unreasonable mill levies for the future residents and property owners of the District. We have also discussed several related issues with the County Attorney's office, primarily concerning operations and maintenance responsibilities, and it is our understanding that the financial projections to be included in the final version of the Service Plan will contemplate an increased level of operations and maintenance responsibilities of the District. The remainder of this letter will focus on the issues surrounding the issuance of debt by the District. IL RESTRICTIONS ON DEBT ISSUANCE IN THE SERVICE PLAN The proposed Service Plan contains material restrictions upon the issuance of debt by the District. In fact, as 1 have discussed with the County Attorney, the provisions in the Service Plan controlling the issuance of debt are almost identical to provisions we have advised be included in developer district service plans in previous advice rendered to the County. See Section lI of our advice letter to the County regarding the Spring Valley Sanitation District, dated February 23, 1999, and you will see that the example of restrictive provisions we included there are actually more liberal �1 03/02/00 16:20 Sherman & Howard t..L.c. NO.772 103 Garfield County, Colorado March 1, 1999 Page 2 than`what the proponents_ of the District are here proposing. Essentially, the controls which are now contained in the Service Plan, and which we have recommended in the past, provide that until the District reaches what is defined as the "Debt Issuance Threshold", i.e., when its assessed valuation is at least twice the amount of its debt. Until that point, however, it is permitted to issue ad valorem tax supported bonds only in certain limited circumstances, as follows: 1. Limited Mill Levy Bonds - bonds secured only by a limited mill levy not in excess of 50 mills; 2. Rated Bonds - bonds which are rated in one of the top four categories by a nationally recognized rating agency; 3. Letter of Credit Secured Bonds - bonds secured by a letter of credit issued by a depository institution; 4. Insured Bonds - bonds which are secured by a policy of bond insurance. The most likely category which will be used by the District in the early stages of its development is number 1 above, Limited Mill Levy Bonds. Essentially, the District will obligate itself to impose only a limited debt service mill levy of 50 mills for payment of the debt until the Debt Issuance Threshold is reached. This means that prior to the date on which the Debt Issuance Threshold is reached, the District will be obligated to impose a debt service mill levy of up to 50 mills and no more. Even if that is insufficient to repay the debt, the District is not obligated to impose a higher mill levy. This essentially shifts the risk of a lack of development from the taxpayers of the District to its bondholders (or to the developer or other provider of any credit enhancement). While this normally means slightly higher borrowing costs for the District, it also protects those taxpayers from unreasonable mill levies, even if development does not meet expectations. In fact, it can actually enhance development in the early years because prospective property purchasers do not have the danger of unlimited trill levies. This limited mill levy arrangement differentiates this type of debt from the type which caused problems for so many people in the late 80's. I should note also that this type of provision has become very typical in Service Plans for developer districts. The other exceptions to the Debt Issuance Threshold are also designed to protect the property owners from unreasonable mill levies. If the bonds are rated, the County can take comfort in the fact that a rating agency has assured itself that the mill levies necessary to pay the debt will not become unreasonable. In practice, it is very rare to see rated bonds from any developer district, and I have seen that only where there is some sort of credit enhancement, or where the District's 03/02/00 16:20 Sherman & Howard L.L.c. NO.772 [704 Garfield County, Colorado March 1, 1999 Page 3 assessed valuation is already high enough to support the debt. If the bonds are secured by a letter of credit or insurance policy, this also has the effect of assuring that the mill levies will not get out of control because the provider of the credit enhancement is taking that risk rather than the property owners of the District. I note that the restrictions in the proposed Service Plan are consistent with, and in fact more restrictive than, the provisions of state law appertaining to special districts. The following is an excerpt from the portion of the Special District Act (Section 32-1-1101, C.R.S.) which places restrictions on the issuance of tax -supported bonds: "(6) (a) The total principal amount of general obligation debt of a special district issued pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, which debt is issued on or after July 1, 1991, shall not at the time of issuance exceed the greater of two million dollars or fifty percent of the valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the special district, as certified by the assessor, except for debt which is: (1) Rated in one of the four highest investment grade rating categories by one or more nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate such obligations; (I1) Determined by the board of any special district in which infrastructure is in place to be necessary to construct or otherwise provide additional improvements specifically ordered by a federal or state regulatory agency to bring the district into compliance with applicable federal or state laws or regulations for the protection of the public health or the environment lithe proceeds raised as a result of such issue are limited solely to the direct and indirect costs of the construction or improvements mandated and are used solely for those purposes; (III) Secured as to the payment of the principal and interest on the debt by a letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement, any of which must be irrevocable and unconditional, issued by a depository institution: (A) With a net worth of not less than ten million dollars in excess of the obligation created by the issuance of the letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement; (B) With the minimum regulatory capital as defined by the primary regulator of such depository institution to meet such obligation; and (C) Where the obligation does not exceed ten percent of the total capital and surplus of the depository institution, as those terms are defined by the primary regulator of such depository institution; or (IV) Issued to financial institutions or institutional investors. (b) Nothing in this title shall prohibit a special district from issuing general obligation debt or other obligations which are either payable from a limited debt service mill levy, which mill levy shall not exceed fifty mills, or which are refundings or restructurings of outstanding obligations, or which are obligations 03/02/00 16:20 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. NO.772 P05 Garfield County, Colorado March 1, 1999 Page 4 issued pursuant to part 14 of this article." As can be seen, thele are several exceptions to the Debt Issuance Threshold in the statute which are not contained in the proposed Service Plan (e.g., the $2,000,000 de minimus limit). As a result, the provisions of this Service Plan are actually more restrictive than what state law would otherwise permit. It should be noted that upon reaching the Debt Issuance Threshold (i.e., assessed valuation which is twice the amount of the District's debt), the District will be able to issue unlimited mill levy bonds. However, when and if the District's assessed valuation reaches twice the amount of its debt, the bonds could be paid with a mill levy of approximately 50 mills, and thus this is also consistent with the County's desire to avoid a situation in which the District's mill levy would become unreasonable. For example, if the District had an assessed valuation of $10,000,000 and bonds outstanding in the amount o f $5,000,000, and assuming a 5.00% borrowing rate (which is higher than would be expected in today' s interest rate market), a level amortization of that debt over 20 years would require $509,261 annually to be produced, which translates into a mill levy of slightly aver 50 mills, even assuming no further growth in assessed valuation. This release provision is very typical in this type of service plan because at that point, the District would be sufficiently developed, and could potentially reduce its borrowing costs (and thus its debt service mill levy) by issuing normal, unlimited mill levy bonds. III. CONCLUSION Based upon a review of the financial provisions of the Service Plan, we feel the limitations therein are consistent with the typical provisions most service plan providers include in developer district service plans for similarly situated districts, and will provide future taxpayers sufficient protection against unreasonable mill levies. Sincerely, SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. Blake T. Jordan