Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 2008-10-28RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 28, 2008 Minutes of a Special nneeting of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of October, 2008. Commissioners: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Martinsen, White and Wilcocks Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Martinsen, White, and Wilcocks EPURA Dir. Smith, Atty. Benedetti, Atty. White and Deputy Town Clerk Deats None Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. LAWSUIT RELATED TO THE ABOLISHMENT OF EPURA - DISCUSSION. Atty. Paul Benedetti identified an urban renewal authority as a separate corporate body with unique powers and duties under Colorado law. State statutes give EPURA the ability to work with the private sector to bring about positive effects within the community that the Town is unable to accomplish by itself. The continuation of EPURA was recently approved by the Town Board of Trustees, and EPURA has a duty and responsibility to carry out the recently approved plan and to maintain its involvement in public/private redevelopment projects. He stated that by rules of civil procedure, and at the court’s request (following a request by the Town Board in its reply brief of August 29, 2008,) EPURA became a necessary party to the lawsuit that has been filed against the Town of Estes Park by Bill Van Horn for the rejection of paperwork related to a proposed initiated ordinance to 1. abolish EPURA, and 2. prevent the Town of Estes Park from re-establishing an urban renewal authority in the future. He stated EPURA is obligated to defend the lawsuit and insure that the court understands all the ramifications of such an ordinance. He stated that issues related to handling existing tax increment financing (TIF) monies, contractual agreements, and Tabor questions all must be addressed leaving no choice but to defend the lawsuit. Atty. Benedetti said that previous legal decisions handed down from appellate courts in the State of Colorado rule that certain duties cannot be delegated from a Town Board or City Council to the electorate, and it is his legal opinion that applies to this issue. Discussion on the following topics ensued: legal question related to the right of the plaintiff to circulate petitions and political question related to the public’s right to vote; support the general principle of the public’s right to vote; cannot abolish and walk away from contracts and statutory duties; EPURA Board was not informed before being brought into suit; EPURA brought into lawsuit by virtue of brief; the court involved EPURA as a necessary party to the litigation; the Town Board and Commissioners should be vigorous in defense of EPURA; comes down to usurping Town’s statutory authority in this case; not about the right to vote, but what can be voted on; not legal to vote on an issue there is no legal right to vote on; and if the ordinance goes forward and passes EPURA may find itself in court to defend the viability of the URA, its contracts, and other people’s rights. Town Attorney Greg White stated that the Town and EPURA are two totally separate bodies and that it is his responsibility to brief and advise the Town Board on legal issues, which he has done. He said that citizens have a right to petition, but that the first initiated ordinance received by the Town Clerk has serious flaws and was denied for several reasons including that it contained more than one subject; that, in his RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 28, 2008 - Page 2 opinion, it is not legal for the electorate to vote on the establishment of a URA; and, if approved by voters the ordinance required EPURA to immediately cease operations which cannot be done due to contractual obligations and public funding. He stated that politically this may not be something the EPURA Commissioners want to face, but that legally they must. Additional topics of discussion included: it is the Commissioners’ job to defend EPURA; the abolishment of EPURA would have many ramifications that the public does not understand: put Commissioners into an educational role to inform public about EPURA; Town is not inhibiting or discouraging a vote if appropriate initiative is submitted. It was moved (Cope) that any filings made to the court include a statement that EPURA supports the public’s right to vote, and the motion died for lack of a second. STANLEY STEAMER MUSEUM PROPOSAL - DISCUSSION. John Cullen, owner of the Stanley Hotel, reviewed revisions to the original proposal he had presented to the Commissioners which included defining responsibilities and segregating capital and risks with no operational liability to the Town of Estes Park or EPURA for the museum, modifications and clarifications to the design structure of the project, and identifying supporters of the museum. Mr. Cullen stated that television personality and car enthusiast. Jay Leno, has expressed interest in the museum and that he intends to meet with representatives of the entertainer to discuss his support of the project. Chairman Newsom pointed out items to address during discussion including a timeline for the project; Mr. Cullen’s request for $100,000 from the CVB budget for advertising for the museum; and noted pending lawsuits exist between the Town of Estes Park and the Stanley Hotel. Mr. Cullen said that a decision to support the project is needed from EPURA and the Town Board no later than December 1, 2008, in order to meet project deadlines. Dir. Pickering addressed the Commissioners and stated that the CVB is responsible for marketing Estes Park as a destination for the greater good of all business owners, not to subsidize individual businesses or projects. He said that $100,000 is a large portion of the CVB budget and that to set a precedent of providing sales tax dollars to an individual business would be unfair. The Commissioners discussed the following: opportunity for people to ride in Stanley Steamer is unique and currently unavailable; include information about the Stanley Steamer Museum on the CVB website’s list of activities; Carriage House is located within the old EPURA boundaries; EPURA has entered into public/private partnership in the past when redeveloping Bob’s Amoco property: concerns about the structural viability of the Carriage House; information related to finances and report from structural engineer needed to make recommendation to the Town Board; if Local Marketing District is successful at the polls, revenue will be available beginning January 2010; it is important for the timing of the project to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Hotel to draw national attention; The Stanley Hotel’s contribution of a $300,000 line of credit will provide for cash flow rather than actual cash put into project; and if funding from CVB is not available, monies from grants and foundations will be pursued. Dir. Smith summarized that a request is before the Board for $400,000 for remodeling of the Stanley Carriage House to house the Stanley Steamer Automobile Museum. He stated that the Commissioners must set priorities to determine if the project is the best allocation of remaining EPURA resources and that the Town Board will make the final decision as the expenditure exceeds $100,000. It was moved and seconded (Cope/Martinsen) that Town Administrator Halburnt and EPURA Dir. Smith seek financial, engineering, legal, and Town building inspector reports and recommendations on the proposal made by Mr. Cullen as soon as possible to be provided to the EPURA Commissioners and the Town RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 28, 2008 - Page 3 Board so that a recommendation on the project can be made, and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Wilcocks inquired into the status of the 501(c)(3) organization that will be formed to operate the museum. Mr. Cullen stated that it has not yet been created. Commissioner Wilcocks stated that in the event the project is recommended for approval, a contract outlining responsibilities, leases, money commitments and obligations must be agreed to before moving forward. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the special meeting at 10:17 a.m. 'JJJ Cynthia Beats, Deputy Town Clerk