csuralogov2
MEETING

FEBRUARY 26, 2014

AGENDA

Date:

February 26, 2014

Time:

11:00 a.m.

Place

City Hall – Council Chambers

107 N. Nevada Ave., Third Floor

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

Agenda:

1.

Approval of January 22, 2014 CSURA meeting minutes

2.

Approval of Financial Report as of January 31, 2014 – Carrie Bartow

3.

Approval of the Amended 2013 Budget – Carrie Bartow

4.

Approval of the CSURA 2013 Audit Report – Carrie Bartow

5.

City for Champions Status Report – Bob Cope

6.

Annual Meeting & Election of Officers schedule - Board

7.

Election of Officers (pending #6) - Board

8.

Gold Hill Mesa Design Standards Amendment–European Eclectic Architectural Style – Jim Rees

9.

Downtown Review Board Representation – David Neville

10.

Other Matters

11.

Adjournment

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY

OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS

HELD ON WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 26, 2014

On the 26nd day of February, 2014, the Commissioners of the Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Authority of the City of Colorado Springs met in Regular Session at 107 N. Nevada Avenue, at City Hall Council Chambers, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

In attendance were:

COMMISSIONERS:

Merv Bennet

Tiffany Colvert

David Isbelle

David Neville

Wynne Palermo

Jim Raughton

Robert Shonkwiler

Rosemarie Venezia

Susan Wood-Ellis

Also in attendance:

Dan Hughes

CSURA Legal Counsel

Jim Rees

CSURA Staff

Lisa Valverde

Carrie Bartow

CliftonLarsonAllen, CPA

Peter Wysocki

Bob Cope

ITEM 1 – APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 22, 2014 MEETING MINUTES

Motion by Mr. Raughton, second by Mrs. Palermo to approve the January 22, 2014 meeting minutes.

Motion Carried 9-0

ITEM 2 – APPROVAL OF FINANCIAL REPORT AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2013

Ms. Bartow reviewed the financial reports as provided in the packet.

Mr. Neville inquired if the Lowell project is closed out and will the board be seeing it again. Ms. Bartow stated no, the project has since been closed out and will not come before the board again.

Motion by Ms. Colvert to approve Financial Reports, second by Mr. Raughton.

Motion Carried 9-0.

ITEM 3 – APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED 2013 BUDGET

Ms. Bartow explained the budget amendment request as provided in the packet.

Motion by Ms. Palermo, second by Ms. Venezia to approve the 2013 budget amendments.

Motion Carried 9-0

ITEM 4 – APPROVAL OF THE CSURA 2013 AUDIT REPORT

Ms. Bartow explained the audit information as provided in the packet.

Mr. Rees suggested a copy be provided to Council. Mr. Bennett requested that an interpretation also be provided. Mr. Rees will work with Ms. Bartow to provide a status report summary along with the full report in order for Council to see any issues or changes from the prior year.

Motion by Ms. Palermo to approve the CSURA 2013 Audit Report, second by Ms. Colvert.

Motion Carried 9-0

ITEM 5 – CITY FOR CHAMPIONS

Mr. Bob Cope provided an update on City for Champions per PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A).

Mr. Shonkwiler inquired of the UCCS stadium and will the Authority be responsible for funding. Mr. Cope stated that the University has not asked for any additional funding. Mr. Rees stated that the State (UCCS) can coordinate with the City if they so choose and he does believe that the CSURA Board can receive updates as the project commences. Ms. Wood Ellis inquired of the sales tax income and will it too come to the board to be reviewed. Ms. Bartow stated yes, Mr. Rees stated the current bonds require the City to provide this on a monthly basis and that any proposed new bonds will require Board approval.

Mr. Raughton inquired as to what the lower center enclave (not in the City) was on the TIF zone. Mr. Cope explained it is actually in the County and is located behind Hotel Elegante on South Circle and Janitel Dr.

Mr. Neville inquired will URA be asked to handle any sales tax funds received by the City for Champions project. Mr. Cope stated yes, the Urban Renewal Authority will be handling all funding coming in.

Mr. Shonkwiler inquired if copies of the presentation can be provided to the board. Mr. Cope stated yes, he will provide hard copies to the board.

Mr. Chris Jenkins, Norwood Development spoke to the board and addressed the opportunity that City for Champions will provide the City as a whole. He stated that he is looking forward to working with the board and engaging the board in the process.

Ms. Wood Ellis inquired of the convention center plans that were eventually turned down by the voters, and there was a moratorium in place for an event center and has that been lifted. Mr. Jenkins stated no, the venue is not a convention center and is not going to be held back legally. Ms. Wood Ellis inquired of when the 30 year period started for the State sales tax increment collection. Mr. Jenkins stated December 16. 2013.

Mr. Neville stated the Chair of the Urban Renewal Authority will be an exofficio member of the City for Champions committee and inquired of the resolution that needs to be entered into by the State.

Mr. Neville stated there will be many requirements moving forward, from a reporting requirements standpoint to consider. Ms. Bartow stated that she has reviewed the resolutions provided by Mr. Rees from Aurora and Pueblo and believes that those direct costs are reimbursable through RTA funding. However, the reporting requirements for the future remain yet to be seen. The exact language needs to be seen and until then there is no way to estimate cost. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that the Denver Post is reporting a lawsuit that is currently taking place in Denver, and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Shonkwiler would like to review the liability that the URA will be taking on.

Mr. Neville stated that we can follow Pueblo as they are the only entity that has precedence. Mr. Bennett stated that we are different from Pueblo and Aurora as they only have one venue, we have more and the venues will be treated differently. They need TIF to fund public infrastructure and we need to keep in mind that for at least two venues the responsibilities and roles will be different. Mr. Neville stated that the role of the Urban Renewal Authority is primarily financing, however the bigger role for the Board is the SW downtown urban renewal plan amendment. The factors have not yet been decided or flushed out. Mr. Cope stated yes, he is in agreement. Mr. Rees requested that Mr. Cope talk about the museum. Mr. Cope stated Mr. Celeste would like to see the museum started sooner rather than later and would like to see the stadium happen in context with the quicker schedule for the museum. Mr. Shonkwiler spoke to the current Urban Renewal Authority districts that are currently in existence and he feels that it is going to be difficult to raise the funds in the required time frames. He thinks the best way to go would be to dissolve the inactive districts and create a new one that would oversee this project as well as all of the others. He feels it will allow for monies to be placed back into the general fund, and will be looked upon more positively. Mr. Cope stated the master plan process is now starting and that is the time to explore the concepts.

Mr. Shonkwiler brought forth other ideas for tax increment financing and felt that the people, who own property in the areas, should pay for the benefit of being within these Urban Renewal Authority areas. Mr. Cope stated that these are all good ideas and eventually, this will all come before the board again, and will fall under this board’s purview. Mr. Neville also agreed with Mr. Shonkwiler and stated that there is the possibility for combined TIFs etc., and briefly spoke to the processes that will need to be completed with the USAFA, the Governor’s office and the other entities that will need to enter into agreements with the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Raughton wanted clarification as to other urban renewal areas downtown. Mr. Rees stated that the DDA controls property tax increment collection in the entire downtown area with the exception of SW Downtown, CiyGate, and the City Auditorium Block. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he believes that now is the time to begin researching TIFs and begin collaboration. Mr. Raughton inquired, do they (DDA) have their own Mill Levy. Mr. Hughes stated no; they only have one Mill Levy. Mr. Shonkwiler commended Mr. Cope on his City for Champions work.

ITEM 6 – ANNUAL MEETING AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS SCHEDULE

Mr. Neville discussed the proposal to change the date for the election from February to June because new members come on board in May. He stated that his take on the item is that he believes in having more experienced board members electing officers. He has discussed the issue with Wynetta Massey, City Attorney and the conclusion was that terms should be staggered. That issue will need to be addressed at the Mayor and City Council level. He believes it is outside of the Board’s purview. The other item on the table is electing officers after new members have come on the board. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he has been pushing this forward, and feels that the new Officer, or the Chair could be reappointed. He stated that he personally has never sat on a board where the leaving members voted for the Officers that were leaving. He feels this is a twofold issue, good governance, and staggered terms. He also stated that he is happy with the current officers, and would like to see the same Chair and Vice Chair currently.

Mr. Shonkwiler requested that the election take place in April rather than February as the by-laws state.

Mr. Raughton agreed with the staggered terms, and believes there are current members who would truncate their terms in order to stagger.

Motion by Shonkwiler to move the election to April of each year, second by Raughton

Motion Carried 5-4 (Ms. Wood Ellis, Ms. Venezia, Ms. Palermo, and Mr. Isbell oppose)

Mr. Hughes will prepare a proposal to stagger terms and decide a possible resolution for Council. Mr. Shonkwiler inquired of statutes limiting terms. Mr. Hughes stated that there is a 5 year term, but no limit to how many terms. Mr. Neville stated without any motion Palermo and Neville will serve as Chair and Vice Chair until April.

Provision for Chair and Vice Chair, does not need to be amended, the Election of Officers will be held in April.

Motion to move election to April, Motion Carried 9-0

ITEM 7 – ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Tabled

ITEM 8 – GOLD HILL MESA DESIGN STANDARDS

Mr. David Isbell recused himself as he is representing Gold Hill Mesa. Ms. Colvert inquired as to why this change in design took place. Mr. Rees stated that Gold Hill Mesa has decided to introduce a more eclectic style for this neighborhood. Ms. Colvert spoke to the potential for another round of design styles that will be brought before the board in the future. Mr. Raughton stated if the market supports design changes, he will support that. Mr. Rees stated that the designs are market driven. Ms. Colvert requested that all design styles be brought forth at once. Mr. Rees stated that there already are many styles that were included in the original design standards and that only the new ones require Board approval. Mr. Neville inquired as to why the Board sees some design guideline but not others. Mr. Rees stated it is specific to the project and Gold hill Mesa has the review of the design guidelines as part of their requirements. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he feels there is some benefit for the designs to come before the board, just for continuity.

Motion by Mr. Raughton to approve the Gold Hill Mesa Design Standards, second by Ms. Venezia

Motion Carried 8-0 (Mr. Isbell recused)

ITEM 9 – DOWNTOWN REVIEW BOARD REPRESENTATION

Mr. Neville inquired of a new representative for the Downtown Review Board as he has been serving, but his City for Champions responsibilities have taken over. Mr. Neville needs to resign, however another Authority member needs to be assigned the task. Ms. Colvert has agreed to sit on the board, however she just wanted to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Shonkwiler stated as long as there is no personal vested interest in items brought forth, there is little to no chance for conflicts of interest. Mr. Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, stated that Mr. Shonkwiler was correct in the personal and financial gain explanation of conflict of interest. He did state that the Downtown Review Boards review parameters have a more zone based relation and not financial. He does need a member from the Authority for the Downtown Review Board and perhaps the requirements need to be amended should there be a conflict of interest. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that there is a difference with having an interest in projects, versus having a personal financial gain leading to a conflict of interest.

Motion by Mr. Shonkwiler to approve Tiffany Colvert as the new Urban Renewal Authority representative to the Downtown Review Board, second by Mr. Isbell.

Motion Carried. 9-0

ITEM 10 - OTHER MATTERS

Nevada Design Guidelines

Mr. Wysocki provided a status of the project. He stated Mr. Knight, City Council member, during the first presentation to Council, requested a larger outreach to constituents. Mr. Wysocki stated that conversations have been had with Mr. Knight there are several HOAs that will be contacted to provide that outreach, the item is scheduled for the March 25th City Council hearing. Two notices will be sent out prior to the hearings, one to property owners within the area, and another to the requested HOAs. They will be asked to review the Design Standard and provide comments back to City Planning.

Mr. Shonkwiler inquired of the notices sent out for the Railway Loft project in SW Downtown, a notice was sent recently to the property owner in Hawaii via certified mail. Mr. Neville stated that the ball was dropped, and proper notification had not been made earlier Staff is waiting on the confirmation from the US Postal Service that delivery was made.

Mr. Bill Murray, representing Mr. Knowles stated that he’s spoken to Mr. Knowles and no notification has been received as of today.

Next meeting March 26, 2014

Motion to adjourn the meeting by Ms. Palermo, second by Mr. Shonkwiler

Meeting adjourned at 1:00pm.

item4a2
Search
Nevadaafter1
Nevadaafter

 2017 Meetings

July 26, 2017
Joint Meeting July 17, 2017

June 28, 2017

Special Meeting June 15, 2017

May 24, 2017
April 26, 2017

Special Meeting April 7, 2017
March 22, 2017

February 22, 2017

January 25, 2017

m3

December 21, 2016
November 16, 2016

November 10, 2016

October 26, 2016

City Council, October 5, 2016

September 28, 2016
August 24, 2016
August 3, 2016

July 20, 2016

June 22, 2016

May 25, 2016
April 27, 2016

City Council, April 6, 2016
Special Meeting, April 6, 2016
March 23, 2016

February 24, 2016

January 27, 2016

 2015 Meetings

December 16, 2015
November 18, 2015

November 10, 2015 CSURA/DDA

October 28, 2015 Special
October 14, 2015 Special
September 23, 2015

September 14, 2015
August 26, 2015

July 22, 2015

June 24, 2015

May 27, 2015

May 7, 2015 Work Session

April 22, 2015

March 25, 2015

February 25, 2015

January 27, 2015

 2014 Meetings

December 17, 2014
December 4, 2014

November 19, 2014

October 22, 2014

October 7, 2014, Special
September 24, 2014

September 10, 2014 Special

July 23, 2014
June 25, 2014
May 28, 2014

April 23, 2014

March 26, 2014

February 26, 2014

January 22, 2014

m6

December 18, 2013
November 19, 2013
October 18, 2013
September 25, 2013
August 28, 2013

June 26, 2013
May 22, 2013
April 24, 2013
March 27, 2013

February 27, 2013

January 23, 2013

m7

November 28, 2012
October 24, 2012

September 26, 2012

August 8, 2012

July 25, 2012

June 21, 2012

May 17, 2012

April 19, 2012

March 15, 2012
March 5, 2012
February 23, 2012
January 31, 2012 Special Meeting
January 19, 2012
January 13, 2012 Special Meeting

m8

December 15, 2011
November 10, 2011
September 15, 2011
August 18, 2011
June 9, 2011
May 19, 2011
April 19, 2011
March 17, 2011
February 24, 2011
January 20, 2011

 2010 Meetings

December 15, 2010
October 28, 2010
September 16, 2010
July 15, 2010
May 20, 2010
April 6, 2010
February 4, 2010
January 21, 2010