1. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. 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

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

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

11. 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

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

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

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

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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. Where special districts can fit in (an example)

19. 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

20. 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