MAY 28, 2014



May 28, 2014


11:00 a.m.


City Hall – Pikes Peak Room

107 N. Nevada Ave., Second Floor

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903



Approval of April 23, 2014 CSURA meeting minutes – Lisa Valverde


Approval of Financial Report as of April 30, 2014 – Carrie Bartow


Citizen Discussion Period as part of the standard agenda – David Neville


Colorado Open Records Request Policy (Draft) – Jim Rees


House Bill 14-1375 Status – Jim Rees


Board meeting location – David Neville


Other Matters




May 28, 2014 Transcript





On the 26nd day of March 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:


Tiffany Colvert

Merv Bennett

Valerie Hunter

David Neville

Wynne Palermo

Nolan Shriner

Peter Scoville

Also in attendance:

Dan Hughes

CSURA Legal Counsel

Jim Rees


Lisa Valverde

Carrie Bartow

CliftonLarsonAllen, CPA

Peter Wysocki


Motion by Ms. Colvert, Second by Ms. Palermo to approve the April 23, 2014 meeting minutes. The motion carried. 7-0


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

Ms. Colvert inquired of David Gross’ services. Ms. Bartow stated that he provides IT services for the Board.

Ms. Bartow then clarified Mr. Rees’ salary is now ACH (online bank transfer) and will not be included automatically on the check register. She indicated that all ACH transfers will be logged for the Board to see in the future.

Mr. Neville inquired of the process for Ivywild. Ms. Bartow stated the TIF funds are split 50/50 between the lender and CSURA until all of the annual administrative fees are paid to the Authority. There have not been enough funds received to cover all of the fees so far in 2014.

Mr. Schriner inquired of the ability to meet with Mr. Rees in order to learn the process and further explain the financial records. Mr. Rees asked Mr. Schriner to email some times when he would be available and he would set up a meeting to go over project status and financing. Carrie Bartow would be available to discuss any project financials as well.

Motion by Ms. Palermo to approve Financial Reports, second by Mr. Schriner.

Motion Carried 7-0


Mr. Neville explained the concept of perhaps adding a time during the agenda that would be open for public discussion. Mr. Neville stated that it was done in the past at the end of the meetings, and he would like for all to begin thinking of adding a section for public discussion to the Agenda

Mr. Bennett stated that the Utility Board as well as Council does have an opportunity to discuss items in general. He described how there can be an open discussion as well as allowing citizens to speak during the item that they came to comment on.

Mr. Neville used Pueblo as an example and stated that they allow three people to present per meeting. He felt that perhaps something more formal should be required and would like the Board to begin thinking of ways to allow for public comment.

Ms. Colvert stated that she has no issue with public comment, and feels that it would be beneficial to have a more structured fashion.

Ms. Palermo stated that she would like to see perhaps a time limit added or maybe limit the number of speakers per item.

Mr. Wysocki stated that the DRB and Planning Commission allow public discussion; they follow the same guidelines as Council. Mr. Neville stated that the major difference would be that those boards act on Quasi-Judicial matters unlike CSURA.

Mr. Scoville would like to see a decision made sooner rather than later.

Mr. Neville stated that he would like staff to put a proposal together for rules and procedures to follow before the next meeting.


Mr. Neville explained that in the last couple of months a few CORA requests were made, and the Board has no policy as to how to handle them. He feels that it would benefit the Board to have a policy put in place.

Mr. Rees explained the draft policy provided in the packet, and stated that there is the potential for the request form to be placed on the website for citizen access.

Mr. Neville stated that the fees set forth are in accordance with the Colorado Open Records Act, and the policy set forth today mirrors the statute.

Mr. Schriner

Motion by to approve the CORA policy by Mr. Schriner, second by Ms. Palermo. Motion Carried 7-0


Mr. Rees explained the bill per the documents provided within the packet, a major issue would be are special sales taxes included in the requirement for municipalities to provide 100% of the sales tax in order to receive 100% of the property tax increments contributed by other taxing entities such as El Paso County and the school districts. The governor has until June 6th to sign the bill. The Mayor has also written a letter to the governor requesting a veto along with almost every municipality in the state. The bill would go into effect January 1st.

Mr. Neville stated that although the bill seems fair on face value, the Counties are already guaranteed the current level of property tax revenue for the 25 year life of an urban renewal area. The City is opposing it. Mr. Rees stated that there are additional costs that may be incurred by the City for fire, police and other services within the redeveloped area. El Paso County also has a County wide sales tax that is not included in the sales tax increment that flows to the URA. Also State sales tax is never included in URA funding. The state typically receives way more sales tax revenue from a commercial urban renewal development than it pays to “backfill” the school districts. It seems inequitable when the numbers are actually calculated. The County is actually receiving a windfall. Mr. Neville stated if the Governor does sign the bill, we will have to add an additional board member that will represent the county commissioners. Ms. Palermo inquired if there are other people speaking against this beside Mayor Bach. Mr. Rees stated that all the major municipalities have spoken against it and have sent the letters to the governor.

Mr. Neville just wanted the board to be aware, that if the bill is passed, the way the URA does business will change substantially given that the county will want to retain tax increment revenue.


Mr. Neville stated that we have had some board feedback on the potential relocation of CSURA Board meetings to City Council Chambers and deferred to Mr. Bennett who has been discussing the board’s requirements with city staff. Mr. Bennett stated that the Chambers is available, however due to technological issues; there is no way to sit anywhere but at the dais. He feels that the Chamber would be conducive to the meeting.

Ms. Palermo inquired as to why video is important. Mr. Bennett replied for greater transparency reasons.

Mr. Neville inquired if there is a cost associated. Mr. Bennett did not have a definitive answer.

Mr. Rees inquired of statute requirements. Mr. Hughes stated only Executive Sessions are required to be recorded, and Board meetings are now being audio recorded.

Mr. Neville stated that he is not aware of any other Boards being broadcast.

Ms. Hunter inquired of perhaps adding audio to the website, to make the recordings available.

Mr. Schriner stated that he feels a lot is lost when changing the setting from the existing roundtable format to a more formal setting, and suggested perhaps moving meetings to the Chambers only for Special Meetings.

Mr. Scoville agreed with Mr. Schriner. Mr. Neville stated that he sees both sides, and there is a tradeoff between face to face discussions and transparency associated with the video recording.

Ms. Palermo stated perhaps in concept we are already open enough. We are not hiding and we are already transparent. She invited critics to come and see the transparency of our current meetings.

Mr. Neville stated that he has had multiple requests to move to the meetings, and this is something that should be considered. He does feel that there is the risk of becoming more formal, and although the Board does not want to move to that direction, moving to the Chambers will allow those that cannot attend to still be able to see the broadcast.

Mr. Scoville inquired if by adding the public comment period to the agenda and moving the meetings to the Chambers, will there be less for people to complain about?

The issue of cost was again brought up, and Mr. Neville tasked Mr. Rees to see if there will be additional costs for use of the room and to provide a person to operate the video equipment.

Mr. Neville stated that we will follow up on potential costs.

No motion to be made today on this item.


Mr. Neville inquired as to what Ultra is doing with Banning Lewis Ranch right now? Mr. Wysocki stated he has had no contact and has no idea what plans are for that area.

Mr. Neville inquired as to the update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and how the Comp Plan affects URA projects? Mr. Wysocki stated the URA has to follow the Comprehensive Plan for any development or redevelopment. The Planning Commission must find a proposed URA in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as part of the state statute requirements for urban renewal plan approval.

Mr. Rees inquired if there will be a place for the URA to weigh in on infill and redevelopment. Mr. Wysocki stated yes, there will be focused steering committees in the future and URA will be part of the discussion.

Mr. Schriner stated that the City does need a Comp Plan update.

Mr. Bennett stated he would like to see a Comp Plan, but would also like to see it finished. There is a concern that funding is insufficient to complete an update.

Ms. Colvert inquired of additional resources or grants to fund the Comp Plan. Mr. Wysocki stated yes there are grants available, and he hopes to offset some of the costs in the future.

Mr. Neville inquired of the N. Nevada Avenue design guidelines, Mr. Rees noted that Council had adopted the URA and master plan amendment to include them and passed out hardcopies of the guidelines.

Ms. Colvert asked if there were any public comments from the audience.

There were none

Motion to adjourn Ms. Palermo, second by Mr. Scoville. Motion Carried 7-0

Meeting adjourned at 12:55 PM

Next meeting: June 25, 2014


 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


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


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


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


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