Special districts in Colorado: Regional authority players ED ICENOGLE Icenogle | Seaver | Pogue A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law 4725 South Monaco Street, Suite 225 Denver, Colorado 80237 Colorado Special District Association Annual Conference Keystone Colorado, Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013

Districts’ role in a time of increasing regionalism Community development Infrastructure finance Going onto the regional field Recognizing districts as players

Districts’ historic purpose under State law Local projects                    Local choice Local governance Local finance A

Concern with proliferation of districts Legislative declaration Fragmentation Tax source diffusion Overlapping services Assumption of services A

Districts as sub-local entities Service plan restrictions   Service plan approval Action by county, municipality                                               B

Special district evolution Proliferated and ubiquitous Evolving to fill niche(s) Multiple and extrovert structures E.g., security, covenants, business  C

Finding, filling new niches Newer, different needs arise Societal needs Infrastructure, services Decreasing funding available Federal, state, local

Funding Colorado infrastructure The TABOR niche Enterprises Less than city- or county-wide vote Whole > sum of its parts Big projects Revenue stream timing Economies of scale

Regionalism: The Goldilocks factor Not too big Not too small Just right Regional authorities and entities

Opportunities for the regional approach Transportation Water Sewer Drainage Parks and recreation

Characteristics of the regional approach Accumulated interest (2 or more players) Collective responsibility Enterprise funding separate from TABOR “district” New, customized rules of the game

Forms of regionalism D E IGA entities Colorado Constitution Statutory embellishment              Statutorily-created authorities Statutorily-enabled authorities Authorities by another name D E

Authorities by another name IGA association of special districts Overlay special districts Joint powers agreements Multi-district IGAs Coalitions

Examples of “authorities” allowing districts Joint Southeast Public Improvement Authority Regional transportation authorities, CRS 43-4-601 Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District Common developer district arrangements C-470 Corridor Coalition

Authorities and the two P3s Public-private partnerships Public-public partnerships The twain shall meet

Public-private partnerships Attracting private interests and money Consolidated or larger projects attract Making the P3 process worthwhile “Owner” offloads some cost, risk Benefits of privatizing

Public-public partnerships The “other P3” Can create consolidated or larger projects Can consolidate work into a single “owner” Public-public = authorities (and similar entities)

Where special districts can fit in (an example)

Where special districts can fit in B Multi-government joint funding/construction agreement C Lead agency with financial contribution agreement D Project-specific legislative entity incorporating district(s) F Association of special districts H Regional transportation authority M Entity formed by IGA O TABOR enterprise (multiple districts) F

Special districts in Colorado: Regional authority players ED ICENOGLE Icenogle | Seaver | Pogue A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law 4725 South Monaco Street, Suite 225 Denver, Colorado 80237 Colorado Special District Association Annual Conference Keystone Colorado, Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013