Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1983-11-16BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Committee ^November 16, 1983 Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Charles H. Phares, Commissioners Larry Helmlch, J. Donald Pauley, Edward B. Pohl, Dale G. Hill, Anne K. Moss, Arthur L. Anderson Chairman Phares, Commissioners Pauley, Pohl, Hill, Moss and Anderson Executive Director Cole, Secretary Graff, Russell Caldwell and Jim Kreidle of Kirchner-Moore, Rick Buckton and Russell Moore of Design Studios West, Dick Bauman of Transplan Associates and Michael Gerlcke of Communication Arts, Inc. Commissioner Helmich A motion was made and seconded (Moss-Anderson) to approve the minutes of the November 2, 1983 meeting. Motion approved. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: John Webermeier discussed a long-range problem he sees with the inability for people to move west on West Elkhorn as an entrance point to the National Park. The visitors' count this past summer for the North Entrance to the National Park was down about 18% and the count for the South Entrance was up about 5%. A pattern is developing which raises a question that has been discussed over the years of closing the North Entrance to the Park. Webermeier asked the Commission to look at the traffic pattern being adopted very carefully. Patty Hanson expressed concern for the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection and the potential for accidents with people in the mandatory left turn lane realizing too late that they have to turn and trying to squeeze into the next lane allowing them to continue straight ahead. Dick Bauman explained that this issue is under consid­ eration at the present time. Signage will be improved this summer which will help Inform people and thus improve the flow. Webermeier asked if the left turn lane on Big Horn Drive is justified. Bauman indicated that a parking structure is planned on Cleave Street in the long-range plan which would make the turn a necessity. Short-term, the turn moves traffic out of the area so pedestrians can cross safely. BILLS: Cole presented the following bills: Capital Expense Xerox Copier UPS for .Typewriter Advertising Streetscape Ad Rent Town of Estes Legal Fees Windholz 800.00 108.00 908.00 29.00 $ 235.00 $ 1,573.80 Miscellaneous Pratt's $39.72 UDAG Program 14.95 Mountain Printery 20.00 Paper (Xerox)113.65 Postage 8.42 $196.74 TOTAL BILLS $ 2,941.54 A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Pauley) that the bills be allowed and paid, Motion approved. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - November 16, 1983 - Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS; Cole reported that she had just received a report based upon the findings of a survey taken of the downtown Estes Park merchants by the Forward Estes Park Foundation. The report will be typed and distributed to the Board. COMMITTEE REPORTS; Streetscape Committee; Russell Moore of Design Studios West reviewed the final three design alternatives which will be presented to the public on Friday, November 18. At an 8 a.m. meeting, prior to this Board Meeting, Dick Bauman presented the proposed traffic flow informa­ tion. Moore explained that Design Studios West needs final approval on the traffic flow information as presented. The following motion was passed at the November 2, 1983 Board Meeting; "A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Moss) that we approve the conceptual plan as presented noting we do have concerns about the intersection of Moraine and Elkhorn and the flow of traffic at that turn, and with the understanding that we will be provided a sequence of thinking of how the traffic will flow." After some discussion, the following motion was made; A motion was made and seconded (Pohl—Pauley) to give approval to the concept as presented November 2 with additional comments made today to include plans presented on traffic flow. Motion approved. Cole said if any citizens would like to review the traffic issue. Information is available in the URA Office. Pauley indicated that he felt Design Studios West was on the right track but he would like to see a few more selections of the different street furniture and lighting standards. Several members of the Board expressed the same desire. Pohl asked about light loss on the standards which were presented. Moore indicated that a scan diagram is necessary on any light fixture to determine the amount of light loss. Pedestrian lights are for appearance as well as purpose. Planning Liaison Committee; Moss attended the Planning Commission Meeting on November 15. nothing relevant which needed to be reported. She said there was There was a short discussion concerning the past history of planters on Elkhorn. Hill explained that most of the planters had been provided by different service organizations and none had been successful. The only productive areas have been those maintained by the Town. There was also discussion concerning the time period for responsibility of plantings. Nurseries guarantee the plants for one year, after that time it would be the Urban Renewal Authority's responsibility and after that the responsibility would go to the Town. OLD BUSINESS; Facade Improvements; Cole referred to a memo she had given the Board at the last meeting on Facade Improvements. There was some discussion concerning the best way to help the merchants and also provide a uniform look. Cole indicated that in some areas of the State, towns have gone with the concept of design guidelines as a regulatory mechanism. She did not feel this idea would be appropriate for Estes Park. Hill indicated that there may be a legal problem because the Statutes do not give the Town the authority to require facades. Wlndholz said the Town could not control the aesthetic designs of facades. The URA, Planning Commission and Town Board could present a list of things they would like to see (i.e., lots of wood, colors, etc.) with no legal problems. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - November 16, 1983 - Page 4 Caldwell said they would wait for Hill to review the contract and get the information to Windholz. They would then make the revisions and go ahead and execute the contract. Phares said the contract would be considered at the next Board Meeting. Cole asked Windholz to clarify where things stand with respect to the Kirchner-Moore contract in light of past activities. Windholz stated that the Board does not need a resolution to accept this agreement. The Board hired Kirchner-Moore to be their Bond Underwriters. Kirchner-Moore was hired pursuant to this proposal. The proposal contains a shortened version of this agreement. All the contract does is finalize details of what Kirchner-Moore will do for the Authority. Windholz said the formal process to approve the contract could be by motion. Pauley feels the URA Board should ask for a meeting with the Town Board to discuss financial matters since the financial aspects of UR involve the close cooperation of the Town Board and the URA Board. Caldwell presented a letter to the Board which suggested a possible resolution to the conflict in investment banking agreements between the Town of Estes Park and the Urban Renewal Authority. A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Hill) that we ask for a meeting with the Town Board to discuss financial matters, in particular, contracts with bonding houses in view of the fact that financial aspects of the Urban Renewal Project do involve the close cooperation of both Boards. Motion approved. Caldwell presented the following for information purposes: (1) A summary of future actions coming up which Board needs to focus on. (2) Preliminary figures from the CPA's feasibility work. (3) A timetable of events which had been prepared by a bond attorney listing the steps required to do bond work for streetscape. In order to do the first tax increment financing issue, Kirchner-Moore engaged a CPA to make a projection of what the tax increment would produce. The Board will have to negotiate with the Town for all or a portion of the 1%. They also asked the CPA to project what the 1% will produce. Several draft figures from the CPA included: (1) Sales tax increment from both the sales and property taxes will produce about $3,000,000 thru 1990. (2) Historically, there has been a rate of growth in sales tax of about 11.5/i from 1973 to 1981. (3) Rate of growth in 1982 was 11.1%. The CPA developed three models: (1) 6%; (2) 8%; and (3) 11%. After talking to the CPA for bonding purposes for the first bond issue, he suggested that the Board take the more conservative, middle model. In addition, he has discovered an error in the base calculation of about $150,000. That mistake will be corrected. Kirchner- Moore asked the CPA to focus on what the increment will produce in terms of ability to go into the market and do the first tax increment bond issue. The URA may have the ability to do $800,000 or a million dollars, given very good coverage. One would have to warrant debt service coverage. We've got more revenue than we do debt. If 1.25 million dollars is needed, that might be accomplished. The Board must also evaluate bond insurance and try to get the best rate. Caldwell felt the CPA had given much more comfort than needed. Caldwell asked the question: "How much, under the conservative model, will the 1% produce from the sales tax? Also, how much will there be for the URA and Town to negotiate over?" Caldwell said a safe projection would be 6.5 million dollars over the next 12 years. Kirchner-Moore asked the CPA to do his projections using a conservative model without major redevelopment to Include Confluence Park. At the time we get a developer in place, all figures will have to be revised. Caldwell suggested that draft figures be circulated before the finance meeting with the Town Board. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - November 16, 1983 - Page 3 Anderson suggested that Cole work as a facilitator between the Merchants' Association, the Accommodations' Association and a local architect to see if these organizations might assume some of the responsibility in helping merchants with facades. Confluence Park; Cole reported that there had been a meeting with Developer B on Thursday, November 10. Developer C will be in by the end of the month. Kirchner-Moore Contract: Phares presented the final copy of the Kirchner-Moore Contract, questioning Item 16. He asked if this paragraph gave Kirchner-Moore the exclusive authority to monitor, determine and advise the Authority. Caldwell explained that the Authority still retains the option of saying "yes, go ahead" or "no, do not proceed." The intent would hold as long as Kirchner-Moore has a contract with the Authority. Caldwell said the paragraph was included to elaborate on how refundings would work. The spread is negotiable but Kirchner-Moore put a cap on the spread. Wlndholz recommended the spread be reduced and Kirchner-Moore agreed to 2.75% which is negotiable. Windholz also stated that any kind of Indebtedness is dependent upon the Urban Renewal Authority's approval. The URA cannot commit the Town to give Kirchner-Moore a first option. Hill asked if the word "option" gives Kirchner-Moore the authority to handle refinancing by the URA. Windholz explained that this gives them the first right of refusal. We can go with whomever we wish, but we listen to Kirchner-Moore first. Hill asked if the word "option" could be changed to "advise" and Phares agreed. Windholz stated he felt the two words meant the same thing but the change could be made. Phares referred to the last sentence in Item 18 and questioned the word desirable. Caldwell said that was a mistake on their part and should be undesirable. In support of Item 19, Windholz said the attached fee schedule is at least one-half of the cost of other fee schedules he has written. Hill asked for clarification of Item 19. Caldwell explained that in the event Kirchner-Moore makes an unacceptable proposal to negotiate the bond issue at such spread, the URA has the option to offer the bonds at public sale so other people could bid on them. Under these conditions Kirchner-Moore has to do all the work, prepare the bond issue, and will be paid for the work according to the attached fee schedule. Windholz asked that a statement be Included in Item 19.4 stating that all expenses be paid out of the bond issue. Caldwell explained that Item 15 was added according to Windholz's request. Windholz also requested that Item 20 include examples of the types of expenses referred to. Windholz asked that "Blue Sky" and "Legal Investment Purposes" in Item 13 be explained in an additional sentence. Caldwell explained that "Blue Sky" is a disclosure. When Kirchner-Moore sells bonds to people in other states, attornies have to make reviews of security laws in that state. "Blue Sky is the term used to describe the six or seven page legal opinion which Kirchner-Moore receives. Windholz also feels that Item 14 should include an explanation of Tax Increment Financing. Item 17 states if there is a conflict between Kirchner-Moore's proposal and the contract agreement, the contract agreement would prevail. Phares clarified the fact that the URA does not want to interfere with any bonding activities of the Town of Estes Park. Kirchner-Moore said they will not be involved in any other bonding activities and this is covered in Items 6 and 7 of the contract. Hill indicated he would have to submit this to the Town Board before he could make a decision. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - November 16, 1983 - Page 5 Caldwell distributed a progress report. He indicated that he feels interest rates will remain stable until after the elections in 198A. After that point, it's impossible to guess. The Board will be in an acceptable market between now and November, 1984. The Time Schedule for obtaining Tax Increment Revenue Bonds will take approximately eight weeks. If we begin next week, the Board could feasibly have a closing and the money by January 23. Several decisions which need to be made include: (1) How much money will be necessary. (2) Contract problem resolved. (3) Amend the Plan to do a Bond Issue for 10 or 15 years. (4) Analyze sales tax figures. Hill asked Windholz if the Plan would have to be amended. Wlndholz explained that it could be done by amendment rather than an elaborate public hearing. The reason Page 15 of the Plan was written in the manor it was, was to give instructions and generalities so that final figures could be added by a simple amendment process. Windholz explained the amendment to the Plan may be a simple as saying: "Pursuant to Page 15 instructions, we adopt a memo of Kirchner-Moore and make it part of the Plan." Caldwell said Kirchner-Moore would submit a report to the Town stating that they verify that the revenues will be there for this type of project, that the Authority has the capability to do this size of project, and that Kirchner-Moore would recommend that the Town amend the Plan to earmark the tax increment revenues, property and sales tax for a period not to exceed X or whatever the time period is. This could be passed by resolution. Windholz explained that the mechanics for amending the Plan are that URA adopt the Resolution with a memo to the Town Board asking them to consider the amendment to the Plan and submit it for their resolution. Hill reaffirmed that when the resolution is presented to the Town Board, they will not act until they receive a legal opinion. Cole felt the first step is to meet with the Town Board to discuss contracts and financing strategy next week. Then, in terms of other meetings required, let Cole and Hill set them up accordingly. Windholz stated that the Kirchner-Moore contract is basically for the good of the URA. The contract pins Kirchner-Moore down on certain costs and certain responsi­ bilities. A final contract is not necessary in order for the URA to meet with the Town Board. Hill raised a question concerning the EPURA Financing Strategy document presented to the Town Board at a meeting on November 4, 1983. This document is the basis from which the Town Board is working. Hill felt the strategies were being changed and the Town Board was not being made aware of the changes. One of his basic questions was that of parking and optioning. Hill said if changes were being made, the one-page document should be rewritten. The Town Board is working on the assump­ tion that off-street parking will be paid for thru special improvement districts. If that is to be changed to include tax increment financing, the Board needs to be so advised. Also, if the Town Board is going to obligate sales tax for a certain period of time for a certain structured bond issue, they are going to want to know what the money is going for. Cole's understanding, as staff, is that parking will still be financed thru an improvement district. The issue also involves additional monies to acquire property that may be involved in Confluence Park or other areas. The intent of the EPURA Financing Strategy document was to get a sign-off from the Town Board that EPURA was heading in the right direction. She feels the information will change on that document as more Information is obtained and figures change. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - November 16, 1983 - Page 6 Pauley felt several meetings with the Town Board would be necessary to resolve all questions and problems. He also felt the EPURA Document was an outline for a particular meeting and was not meant to be a document that would be followed to the letter. Hill explained that the Town Board reacts more favorably to firm figures for firm projects, generally speaking. Cole asked Hill if he felt the URA Board would be able to get a reading from the Town Board at the Tuesday meeting. She felt if that would be possible, the Board could proceed and provide backup information. If the URA Board is headed in the wrong direction, they need to know it now. Phares reaffirmed the fact that he felt the URA was moving in the right direction and was doing exactly what they had been directed to do. Resolution #4; On October 19, 1983 the URA approved Resolution #4 Approving the Agreement of Cooperation, Services and Loan of Funds with the Town. It was then sent to the Town Board for their approval. The Town Board had the agreement reviewed by their attorney, Greg White. White sent Wlndholz a letter listing the suggested changes as shown below: (1) Correction: Article I, Section 3. The second line should read "Town Administrator" not "Town Manager." (2) Article II, Section 3 should read: "Personnel actions relating to Town employees shall in no manner be affected by this Agreement. In the event of any personnel action relating to any Town employee while they are working under the terms and provisions of this Agreement, said action shall be brought under the rules and regulations of the Town's Personnel Rules, Regulations and Provisions." (3) Article X. The first sentence of Article X needs to be amended to read as follows: "Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted in any manner as constituting the Town, or its officials, representatives, consultants or employees as the agents or employees of the Authority, or the Authority or its officials, representatives, consultants or employees as agents or employees of the Town." A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Pauley) that the Intergovernmental Agreement be modified with the two changes proposed by White and explained to the Commission by Wlndholz and that as modified, it be resubmitted to the Town Board for final action. Motion approved. NEW BUSINESS: Amend Bylaws: Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws provides that they may be amended if there has been a proposal of amendment at the previous meeting. Pohl will introduce an amendment at the next Board Meeting to provide(the reinstatement of the policyjDcc. that checks in the amount of $1,000 or more must be signed by two persons rather ' than by one person. Pohl feels that checks in this amount should be signed by the Executive Director and the Treasurer or the Executive Director and the Chairman. In the absence of the Executive Director the checks could be signed by the Chairman and the Treasurer. This proposal is based on the following reasons: (1) The Bylaws provide that the Treasurer has certain responsibilities under Article II, Section 4. Currently the Treasurer has no way of controlling or working with those fund. (2) There is a discrepancy based on the action taken at the September 21 Board Meeting which specified that the Bylaws be worded to read that the Executive Director or the Chairman could sign checks. The final document as published provides that only the Executive Director can sign checks. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - November 16, 1983 - Page 7 Pohl also raised the question of bonding for the Treasurer and the Executive Director. Windholz will check to see if Cole is covered under the Town's blanket bond. Pohl suggested that the discussion of bonding be tabled to see if the above resolution passes. If it does, then the Board should direct that the Chaiman and Treasurer be bonded immediately. Resolution for Banking; Pohl explained that at the present time the URA does not have a bank or a bank account. This must be established. A motion was made and seconded (Pohl-Moss) that the Board introduce Resolution #5 that we authorize the Estes Park Bank as the official depository of the URA and that we designate at a later date when the account is open who will be authorized to draw checks. Motion approved. Staff Report; Cole asked Windholz to report on his experiences regarding relationships between the URA and the Town Board in other communities. Specifically, what types of assurances does the Town have that they have not created a monster. Windholz explained that the principal reasons for an Urban Renewal Authority are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) The Town Board does not have the powers available to do some of the things an Urban Renewal Board can do. The Town Board cannot assemble land for the purpose of Urban Development. This power is given specifically to an Urban Renewal Board. Thus, the URA becomes a branch of the Town government and yet it is not recognized as that in any law in Colorado. The Town Board cannot condemn property and sell it or turn it over to developers for Urban Redevelopment purposes. The Town Board cannot issue a financially feasible method for financing the project which is tax increment financing. Tax increment financing is only available to UR Boards. The Town cannot get into the public/private partnerships to the same extent that UR Authorities can. A Town can only condemn property for public purpose (i.e., parks, streets, sewers and all utilities). The net result includes three basic purposes for creating this level of government and allowing it to function; (1) End up with physical redevelopment within the community. (2) End up with economic improvement for the private sector. (3) End up with additional tax revenues for the community, government and Town. Processes by which Town controls the URA include; (1) It's creation. How many, who and power through adoption of the Plan. (2) Dictates its purpose, boundaries and what it is going to do through the adopted Plan. (3) Controls through appointment of commissioner. (A) Final approval of all financing regarding Town's financial involvement (i.e*> SID* GID» G0 Bonds, Revenue Bonds) for Urban Redevelopment. (5) Provides cooperative input, services and expenditures. (6) Power of zoning. . _. _ (7) If URA selects a developer. Town Board has to have 15 days prior notice to entering into a contract. Town cannot, however, veto developer. (8) Any final development plans have to be approved by the Board. (9) Town may dissolve the URA at any time. Phares thanked Windholz for an excellent presentation. Pauley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. 4-Al raff. Recording Secretary