Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1984-01-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Attending: Also Present; Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Committee "January 18, 1984 Commission: Chairman Charles E. Phares, Commissioners Larry Helmich, J. Donald Pauley, Edward B. Pohl, Dale G. Hill, Anne K. Moss, Arthur L. Anderson Chairman Phares, Commissioners Helmich, Pauley, Pohl, Hill, Moss and Anderson Executive Director Cole, Secretary Graff, Rick Buckton of Design Studios West, Russ Caldwell of Kirchner-Moore, John Carmack, Cyrus Wood A motion was made and seconded (Helmich-Moss) to approve the December 21 minutes. Motion approved. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION; Cyrus F. Wood, a local citizen, offered to contribute his time and talents to build a data base and program to handle it for the URA. This data base would contain such information as increased gains by individual merchants as a result of the Redevelopment Program. Phares said the Board would like to discuss this further and would notify Mr. Wood of their decision. BILLS: Cole presented the following bills; Office Supplies; Lewan $ Membership Applications; Small Town Institute $ CDDA 54.00 30.00 25.00 55.00 Legal; Windholz Design Fees; Design Studios West TOTAL BILLS $ 928.20 $ 10,573.79 $ 11,610.99 A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Pohl) to pay the bills. Motion approved. COMMUNICATIONS; Cole reviewed the URA correspondence which included a note to Windholz concerning flood insurance during construction, a letter from Hyder Construction containing street pictures, a Memo to Dale Hill and Greg White regarding Code Amendments, and a letter from Charles Phares to Mr. Packer with the U.S. Postal Service. OLD BUSINESS; Memo from Moss; Each Board Member received a copy of a memo prepared by Anne Moss concerning Industrial Revenue Bonds. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - January 18, 1984 - Page 2 NEW BUSINESS: Request to Town Regarding Code Amendments: Windholz asked that the Board consider a request to the Town Board to amend the code provisions regarding sidewalk improvements for the following: 1. Section 12.20.020 contains important requirements related to the materials, grades and surfaces of sidewalks and curbs. 2. Section 12.20.070 states that property owners or occupants (tenants) are not permitted to place upon, apply to, or embed in sidewalks any sign, symbol, mark or object. 3. Section 12.24.020 states no encroachments are allowed on sidewalks, except for planter boxes. Hill suggested that it might be easier for the Town Board to react to actual suggestions. When the Final Plan is ready and the URA Board knows exactly what changes need to be made, it would then be appropriate to go to the Town Board for the changes. VJindholz was directed to draft the changes and to work out the problems with Greg White, Town Attorney. Facade Improvements: Pauley reported that the Forward Estes Park Foundation is putting together a seminar to be held in the first or second week in March to discuss Exterior Design Improvements. Cole explained that several University of Colorado at Denver students will be available for a two day workshop on facade improvements. She also reported that the State would like to make a video film of the Streetscape activities from the beginning. Property Acquisition: Windholz reviewed some of the legal guidelines for property acquisition. He referred to the Colorado Urban Renewal Law and the Redevelopment Plan. More detailed information on the subject of Property Acquisition will be forthcoming. Kirchner-Moore: Caldwell distributed copies of the Investment Banking Contract for Kirchner-Moore which was proposed on August 10, 1983 and which contains all the revisions made since that time. Phares indicated the Board will rev'i©v7 the contract and take action at the next Board Meeting. Caldwell also distributed copies of a EPURA Cash Flow Analysis. He reviewed this document with the Board. The purpose for the Analysis is to show the Board when they will need certain dollar amounts. Caldwell distributed and discussed a Time Schedule for Tax Increment Revenue Bonds. It will take approximately ten weeks to get the money from the Bond Issue. The URA Board needs to decide by February 1 what will be in the initial bond issue to include the dollar amount and to determine specifically what they expect the bond issue to accomplish. Caldwell said the Board has three options: 1. Tax Increment Bond Issue just for the Streetscape Project. 2. Tax Increment Note Issue just for the Streetscape Project. 3. Tax Increment Bond Issue for the Streetscape Project and Parking. Kirchner-Moore feels the maximum amount which could be borrowed would be $1,200,000 for initial financing. The lower side of a bond or note just for the Streetscape Project would be between $650,000 and $700,000. The advantage of going with an Anticipatory Note or Bond Issue is flexi­ bility. The disadvantage is that it may increase the interest costs depending on market consideration. There is an increase in issuance cost. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - January 18, 1984 - Page 3 Caldwell said if the Board knows they will need a certain amount of money and can justify how they will spend the money, they can go for the full amount. The decision of whether to go for a Bond Issue or a Note Issue will really be a policy decision for the Board rather than a financial issue. Financially speaking, it won't matter because rates are going to continue to be good. Financially it's easier to sell a note than a bond. The Board can go for a maximum under a Note Issue. The Note is normally used when it is not clear how the money is going to be spent. There will be a special Financial Structuring Meeting Wednesday, January 25, at 9 a.m. in Room 207. URA Personnel; Phares appointed a special subcommittee to include Moss, Pohl and Cole to meet and come up with a recommendation for a cost-of-living increase for Secretary Graff and also to discuss whether she should be part-time or full-time. These recommendations will be considered at the January 25 Finance Workshop. Traffic Planning; A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Moss) to authorize Cole to go ahead and work with a traffic consultant concerning the traffic flow problem on East Elkhorn. Motion approved. Planning Liaison: Moss had some concerns about the time factor in getting information from the Planning Commission to the Urban Renewal Authority on issues within the URA District. Carmack will discuss this with Al Sager, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Change Order Approvals; Public Works Director Rich Widmer explained that the Town does not have a written policy on how to handle Change Orders. The project manager has the responsibility of staying within the budget. If the Change Order reaches $10,000 or more it goes to the Public Works Committee for their approval and then to the Town Board. The URA Board felt it would be necessary to keep a closer watch on the Streetscape Project. A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Pohl) that the Director be authorized to approve in writing Change Orders up to $500 on the Streetscape construction. Change Orders in excess of $500 and up to $5,000 shall be approved by the Director and one Board Member to include Pohl, Phares or Anderson. All changes over $5,000 have to be approved by the URA Board. Motion approved. Widmer also raised questions concerning the kiosk and expressed concern for the need for coordination between the design work for the Riverfront Park kiosk and the one proposed by the URA. Communication Arts has been commissioned to design the URA kiosk and will be asked to communicate with the other design firm. Widmer asked how the Board viewed the use of the kiosk. The Board felt it should include a map of Estes, walking routes, public information such as restrooms, police, fire, etc. It should not include advertisements for businesses or garage sales, etc. Buckton explained that the URA kiosk will be in the State's right-of-way thus no vending will be allowed. Design Studios V7est is still, negotiating with the State on use. Phares asked Buckton to get in touch with the design firm for Riverfront Park and coordinate efforts. Caldwell; Caldwell gave a brief summary of Senator Soash's Bill and promised to keep the Board informed. He also said he would be bringing a group of Wyoming citizens interested in urban redevelopment to Estes. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - January 18, 1984 - Page 4 Status of Streetscape Project - DSW Change Orders: Buckton presented three Work Releases which need Board approval: 1. Construction Management, Coordination and Inspection. The original DSW contract was signed on the basis that they would be going hard bid, single bid package. Toward the end of November the URA Board made the decision to go Construction Management. This decision implies a different package for DSW. They will be coordinating with NCE, will be letting more than one bid package, will be fast tracking, and will be assisting in the bidding process. These items were not included in their original contract. Buckton will be spending two days a week for three to four months in Estes Park. He will be looking at design revisions in the field, monitoring field control, monitoring quality control and help with clarification of construction documents. DSW feels they need this opportunity to make revisions which may eliminate construc­ tion problems. A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Pauley) to approve DSW for expenses in connection with both coordination and inspection of Construction Management for work not to exceed $5,000, construc­ tion and inspection not to exceed $7,000 and expenses in connection with both of these items not to exceed $2,600 in connection with the Streetscape Project. Motion approved. 2. Construction Management Selection. This item includes determining the cm's scope of services, soliciting potential CM firms, inter­ viewing CM firms, and evaluating and recommending a firm. A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Anderson) to accept the Change Order in the amount of $1,000. Motion approved. 3. East Elkhorn Lighting. The original DSW contract provided pre­ liminary design for the lighting and all design improvements on East Elkhorn. Since the original contract was signed a decision has been made to construct the lighting on East Elkhorn. The cost of this Change Order would include locating exact positions of the street lights along East Elkhorn, documenting the locations and coordinating with the Light and Power Department. A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Pohl) to approve $800 in fees and $50 in expenses for this Work Release. Motion approved. NCE Budget: Cole explained that the Board's packets also included an updated budget from NCE (dated January 12, 1984). NCE and Cole are working to_try and get all costs under $700,000, to include design fees, CM fees, insurance, supervision and construction costs. Cole also noted that NCE takes notes of all meetings and sends them to Cole for her approval. The Board agreed they did not need to see these notes unless there is a major problem. A motion was made (Moss) to adjourn the meeting. 0____y_________________^ Joyce//Gyfaff, Record/i.|ig Secretary BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS These Property Acquisition notes are from the January 18, 1984 EPURA Board Meeting. They have been reviewed by Jim Windholz, Attorney for the EPURA. Property Acquisition; Question: What's the purpose for which we may acquire properties? Purpose is to eliminate blight, acquire a better tax base and to allow the development of private business. The emphasis is upon having the public sector work with the private sector in accomplishing this. We Can do this by acquiring, clearing, disposing of, selling and developing properties. The Authority cannot develop property itself, it must be done through the private sector. The law says we may dispose of property by selling or leasing or by temporarily retaining that property for our own uses (public purpose) until such time as we're ready to carry out Phase II, III or IV of the Plan. Question: Can we acquire property now for something we may do in 10 or 15 years? The answer must include what's reasonable and what's the public purpose. Are we going to acquire certain tracts of property with the idea that we may do something with it in Phase IV which is between 10 or 20 years later. That may be ok if we could begin doing certain parts of Phase IV in a reasonable length of time and no one at the present time knows what a reasonable length of time is. We cannot acquire property unless it's within the boundaries of the URA District. If we want to adjust the boundaries, we have to go thiough an amendment to the Plan. We cannot acquire property without a public purpose. We cannot acquire property for speculation.' The Plan requires that we shall have covenants attached to our deeds to .the conveyance of title of the property to any private owner or private developer which specifically will not allow that person to utilize that property for speculation. It can only be used for compliance with the Plan. We can acquire property not so stated in the Plan as long as we have a general guide or a general set of principles in regard to what that property will be used for in relation­ ship to Phase I, II, III or any amendments to those Phases. We are not tied by the Plan to do specifically what is required in Phases. A developer may eventually sell the property for speculation as long as he originally developed it in compliance with the Plan. Question: Is there a problem with buying land today because it will be needed in the future and would be much cheaper at the present time? There is a problem with buying as much land today as possible because we know we're going to need it someday to do Phases I thru IV and tying ourselves to the Plan. The question is whether or not this is considered "public purpose," and are we getting into the ^^oal estate business. But if we took the immediate .future. Phase I, and we wanted to attack that because it was in the best interest of the citizenry an we went out and bought land we knew was going to be reacted to a. very short period of time as the Plan goes, is that not legal. It is legal if during that period of time we tie in the property to _ relieving the community of blight and we do that within the guidelines of the Plan, we do that when we adopt the Resolution to acquire the property. The Authority will not get the money unless they have a PU^lic purpose which has been verified by records of meetings, minutes and the Plan. We have to say what we are doing with the money. Question: How much detail do we have to give regarding acquiring property? We have to give some time period. The amount of years is not necessarily important. It's whether or not we make a genuine effort to pick up the property and then to do something with it in a reasonable length of time. Must have a basis, a reason and some findings for reasonings. A BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Property Acquisition, January 18, 1984 - Page 2 May lease properties to tenants for a reasonable length of time pending disposition of the property for our "public purpose." No one knows what a reasonable length of time is. The bond holders want to know what we're doing with the money, how we're going to pay it back and what the future design is for the property to pay the money back. Question; What are the purposes for which we borrow money? We may borrow money for eradicating blight, to acquire property, to pay staff or anything related to the purpose of redevelopment. Vie can't borrow money to invest it to make money to make a nice return. Must use the money for governmental purposes. Vie can invest money on a short-term basis. Rules are clear as to how money may be invested. VIhen we borrow money, the cost of that money is not only the interest but also the fee we pay bond counselors which can be more than the interest payments. Question; VIhat if there is a property we want but it is not needed until Phase IV which in the Plan is noted as long-range option and we want to acquire that property now? Have to make a finding that there's a probability that in fact some portion of Phase IV is going to happen. May move Phase IV ten years forward. Question; How much detail do you need to justify this in the public interest for the public purpose? Not a whole lot. You do not have to amend the Plan. There is an allowance for the Authority to reverse Phases. We are not locked into going thru numerical order of Phases. Have to do them in numerical order but can do pieces of other Phases and do it in a sequence. May amend the Plan by having the Town Board say we can do any Phase at any time. Question; In Phase I we have certain purposes to be accomplished. There are some illustrative portions of the Plan which show parking lots which we are dealing with now. Can we acquire property which is not on those specific locations to use for parking simply because it happens to be available? Parking lots can be relocated. Question; There is a large map in the Plan which indicates that no action can be taken on certain parcels. If we decide it would be a good parking lot can we go for it? Yes, the Plan would have to be amended. Question; What is required to amend the Plan? A proposed modification directed by the Authority has to be directed to the Town Board. The Town Board has to adopt a resolution which substantially changes the Plan in these areas; (1) Land apa; (2) Land use; (3) Design; (4) Building requirements; (5) Timing; (6) Procedure. These six major areas indicate whether a major modification in the Plan is being affected. If the Town Board finds there is no modification in the Plan then all that is needed is a resolution, after notice that it is coming up at a regular meeting. If the Board finds that the Proposed amendment will substantially affect the Plan we go back to Planning and Zoning and after a 7 to 10 day notice in the paper, a public hearing is held. Key issue - proposed amendment is a major modification to the Plan. If not , just a change, it requires a resolution.