HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1985-10-31BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
October 31, 1985
Commissioners;
Attending:
Also Attending;
Absent:
Charles H. Phares, Anne K. Moss, Edward B. Pohl,
Milt Ericson, Lyle Frantz, Dale G. Hill,
J. Donald Pauley
Vice-Chairman Moss, Commissioners Pohl, Ericson,
Frantz and Pauley
Executive Director Art Anderson, Bob Joseph,
Secretary Heifner, Jim Kreidle
Chairman Phares, Commissioner Hill
This informational meeting was called for the purpose of receiving
information from Kirchner/Moore regarding a new bond issue. Jerry
Boudreaux and Steve Jackson of Boudreaux St Jackson, CPA's, were also
in attendance to present projected tax increment figures and other
pertinent information.
Size of the proposed new bond issue is $2,190,000 wi^h ,
available for project work. Commissioner Pohl stated that the bulk
of the difference in actual money the Authority receives from the
bond issue and the total of the bond issue is put into a reserve
fund (approximately $250,000), making the cost of issuing new bonds
approximately $90,000.
Steve Jackson distributed documents to the Board showing the amount
of money available to retire a bond issue. Per Jackson s
presentation, there is a definite upward trend in tax increment.
The 1984-1985 tax was up 22.4% over the base year and 1985-1986
year-to-date is up 34.9% over the base year 1982-1983. Projected
future tax fiqures are based on 5% sales increase and sales of
$70.00/sq. ft. from the Stanley Village complex. All estimates have
been figured conservatively.
Jim Kreidle, Kirchner/Moore & Co. explained the sequence of events
from EPURA's inquiry regarding a new bond issue to his presentat
this morning. Kreidle explained that he uses Jhe figures from
Boudreaux & Jackson to prepare a cas5.fi°V,aJaiYfiS.^° and is
years. A copy of this analysis was distributed to the Board and is
available inthe URA office under this date, and made a part of the
record of these proceedings by reference thereto.
Director Anderson distributed a memo to the Boardfs^^°^.
Windholz dated October 30, 1985 which states, in
upon Jane Roberts' opinion regardiagotha.proPOS5d.
exemption, the Trust Indenture, and Section 3 of the ^0°Perat10
Agreement with the Town, it is Windholz's opinion that the Town h
contractual, legal requirements to oppose the salaa ^a^ ?SeP°
refusal of the petitions, placement of the issue before the ele“?oL? and/o? initiation of litigation to preserve the security
of the bonds. The Authority has a similar obligation to initiate
litigation in opposition to the sales tax matter or e
purpose.
Jim Kreidle stated that a written 0Piaion4;shouJ:d
the Authority within the next day or two from the _ Y
attorneys, which is in agreement with the above opinion.
Director Anderson stated that the URA would like to enter into an
agreement^with the Town to return a portion ?f excess monies If the
conservative estimate of future tax increment figures is correct,
EPURA can continue its projects in the nJxb fa7nYeJ^S: better
continued increase in increment (and contributing a ^ assuring
rrn?i 1 itv of life for residents and visitors alike), thereby assuring
adequate monies to retire e>=istin91.an,1|.£u^u^® ?!btbftheC?4a?ni989.
return money to the Town, on a contractual bas , y
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
There being no further discussion on the above matters, the meeting
was adjourned.
Donna Heifner, Recording Secretary