HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Joint Study Session with EPURA and Planning Commission 2008-04-30 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 30, 2008
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the JOINT TOWN BOARD & EPURA
STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held at Museum Meeting Room in said Town of Estes Park on the
30th day of April, 2008.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson,
Homeier, Levine and Miller
Commission: Chairman Swank, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little,
Steige, and Wilcocks
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson,
Homeier, Levine and Miller. Chairman Swank,
Commissioners Cope, Little and Wilcocks.
Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator
Richardson, Director Smith, EPURA Attorney Benedetti,
Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Commissioner Steige
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m.
Planning Commissioner Wendell Amos spoke to the Planning Commission
recommendation and conditions of approval of the new EPURA plan. He reviewed the
conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and stated he voted no
due to them. He supports EPURA and the continuation as it has benefited the
community.
School Board Member Bob Richardson spoke to his personal views on the continuation
of EPURA. He stated he supports EPURA and the projects it has completed. However,
he senses an overwhelming decline in support for the continuation of EPURA. EPURA
can not be a wish list of projects. It must continue to beautify Estes Park to make it
competitive with other resort towns. He questioned the mechanism to complete the
projects and the name of the organization.
Pros for the Continuation of EPURA
- Town competitiveness
- Overall increase in tax revenue for the Town and all of the entities due to the
redevelopment and increase in property value
- More attractive
- Increase number of jobs
- Increased economy
- Efficient organization
- EPURA can bond
- Partner with public/private partnership
- Held in high regard
- Stay competitive with other resort towns
- Provides a source of revenue not available to the Town
- Important funding source
- Market driven need – improvements and market driven
- Enter into multiple year agreements
- Spurs private investment
- Can sell land for less than it is worth to accomplish a redevelopment goal
Cons for the Continuation of EPURA
- Misunderstanding of the distribution of funds
Town Board Study Session – April 30, 2008 – Page 2
- Lack of voter participation in the approval of projects (Bonding)
- Perception that EPURA has done its job
- No huge identified project (No urgency such as the flood)
- Statute does not allow specific projects to be listed
- Statewide inappropriate use of funding and eminent domain
- Lack of perceived blight
- Term blight
- Urban in name
- Perception that the Town is stealing money that would stay with the taxpayer
or other taxing entities
- Determine goals and future projects
Overall Statement from Pros and Cons
EPURA exists for the economic sustainability of Estes Park and the mechanism
necessary to achieve it.
There is a need to remain competitive with other communities and to continue to
improve and reinvest in the community. The Town’s General Fund can not make all the
necessary improvements.
Questions
Should TIF continue? same or new
Should boundaries be amended?
What happens to 2008 money?
Attorney Benedetti stated EPURA can enter into public/private partnerships for
redevelopment, construction of public facilities and provide assistance with land
assembly costs. Projects could be built by a private developer with the Authority
reimbursing them for their costs. The Authority could bond for these projects prior to
receiving TIF funds based on anticipated revenues. Bonding authorities prefer the
predictability of property TIF financing over the volatility of sales tax TIF. He also stated
property TIF can be refunded to a taxing district through an agreement if the district
meets a goal of the Authority’s plan.
Attorney White commented the Town can not enter into public/private partnerships and
the Town can not use eminent domain. Long term bonding by the Town would require a
vote. The Authority provides funding options that do not exist for the municipality.
EPURA PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR 2008 ($900,000).
Attorney Benedetti stated the funds could be used to complete a portion of the current
EPURA plan. The current plan does not expire and the funds could be encumbered
and used in 2009, in essence it could be seed money for a new EPURA as long as the
money is used for the current plan.
The Town Board would encourage EPURA to look at improving Moraine Avenue; use
the funds for future development that would encourage future private redevelopment;
implementation of the Riverwalk signage plan as modified; look at the recommendations
of the 2017 team.
Chair Swank recommended a project that would increase TIF financing and provide
operational funds quickly if EPURA is renewed.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW URBAN RENEWAL AREA.
Attorney Benedetti stated the boundaries of the new plan have been drawn as narrowly
as possible to encompass future projects. The Town Board has the authority to change
the boundaries later; however, he recommends adding potential area to the new plan
rather than amending the plan at a later date.
Town Board Study Session – April 30, 2008 – Page 3
Suggested changes included Stanley Park, the old elementary building, Lots 4, 5, & 6
Stanley Historic District, include commercial area of Reclamation District up to 2nd Street
and the removal of Elkhorn Avenue.
Commissioner Wilcocks stated Elkhorn Avenue was included to complete projects from
the previous plan, the façade program and/or the signage plan. He stated the Riverwalk
was removed from the plan.
Concerns were raised regarding the façade program including moving forward without a
historic preservation plan, using public funds to pay for private improvements and
increasing property values may lead to higher rents for downtown merchants.
EPURA FUNDING IN THE EARLY YEARS.
Discussion was heard regarding how EPURA would be funded in the future, i.e.
property TIF and/or sales tax TIF. The current plan would fund EPURA through the
property tax TIF and all sales tax would be paid into the Town’s General Fund.
However, the Town and EPURA could enter into an agreement to provide funding prior
to the collection of property TIF in the early years.
Trustee Blackhurst suggested funding of EPURA for 2009 be a discussion item at the
July 25, 2008 Budget Study Session.
CONDITIONS ANALYSIS AND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN ADOPTION PROCEDURE
AND TIMING.
EPURA staff and attorney would revise the proposed map to include those areas
discussed including the addition of 2nd Street, Elementary building and Stanley Park and
minor changes to the plan. The reference to Exhibit C related to the previous plan
would be removed from the new plan. The new documents would be presented at the
Town Board meeting on May 13, 2008.
Trustee Blackhurst request the removal of Elkhorn Avenue from the plan.
EPURA NAME CHANGE.
Chairman Swank stated the Authority would discuss a possible name change if
renewed. Commissioner Cope questioned the current name and stated a more positive
name would be beneficial. Including the word “Improvement” in the name would be
more descriptive to the work completed by the Authority.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk