Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LIGh 1, HARRINGTON & DA \\lES, .. .C. <br />A TTORNEYS AT LA W <br /> <br />WRITER SQUARE OFFICE TOWER <br />1512 LARIMER STREET, SUITE 300 <br />DENVER, COLORADO $0202 <br /> <br />TEL. (303) 298-160) <br />FAX (303) 298-1621 <br />E-MAfL slighl@lhdlaw.coln <br /> <br />SAlvlUEL J. LIGHT <br /> <br />July 10,2007 <br /> <br />Norman F. Kron, Esq. <br />Grimshaw & Harring, P. C. <br />Suite 3800 <br />Wells Fargo Center <br />1700 Lincoln Street <br />Denver, CO 80203-4538 <br /> <br />Re: Louisville Revitalization Commission (LRC) - Louisville Business Improvement District <br />(BID) <br /> <br />Dear Rick: <br /> <br />The LRe asked that I respond to your letters inquiring about a potential revenue sharinig <br />agreement between the LRC and BID. This letter forwards theLRC's response and also follow$- <br />up on our prior conversation on this topic. <br /> <br />Your most recent letter suggests a potenti(\,l agreement for (1) revenue sharing of tax incremen!t <br />financing (TIF) revenues, and (2) exclusion of BID mill levy revenues from the operation of tlie <br />TIF. <br /> <br />The LRC is supportive of mutual efforts to avoid overlap between the activities of the LRC m~d <br />BID. Toward thaI end, the LRC believes that further discussion of the parties' respective rolels <br />and activities is irnportant, but that it is premature to enter into any agreement for reven4e <br />sharing. Further, the LRC desires to complete additional analysis of market and economic <br />conditions prior to any fulther consideration of revenue sharing. Additionally, any 1'117 <br />agreement would require City Council approval. <br /> <br />We also discussed whether any agreement is needed for the BID to receive revenues derived <br />frorn application of any new BID mill levy against the base year valuation. I interpret the statu~e <br />(C.R.S. 31-25-109(9)(a)(I)) as requiring the same increment/base split ilTespective of whetheria <br />ta.xing entity commences imposition of its mill levy before or after adoption of the 1'IF. II <br />discussed this issue with representatives of the Office of State Property Tax Administrat9r <br />(P1'A), who agreed this is the intent of the statute. Therefore, I do not think an agreement Js <br />necessary on this point. I am also reluctant to recommend such an agreement to the LRj: <br />