My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2019 05 14
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2019 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2019 05 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:58 PM
Creation date
6/12/2019 8:44:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 14, 2019 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Councilmember Stolzmann asked about new taxes that started after the URA was put in <br />place She noted these are new taxes not a tax increment generated by development in <br />the URA. For example the new tax for the Rec Center is treated as TIF in those areas and <br />goes to the LRC Kelly stated to change that would require modification to the urban <br />renewal plan or a new agreement with the LRC <br />Director DeJong reviewed the Highway 42 Renewal Plan including the blight factors, the <br />purpose is to eliminate and prevent blight and encourage reinvestment. The area <br />generates a property tax TIF, but no sales tax TIF City Attorney Kelly stated to add a <br />sales tax TIF the LRC would have to ask for a change and it would require Council <br />approval <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton asked why parts of Main Street were included in the plan Mayor <br />Muckle stated in 2005 downtown wasn't what it is today and there was some concern it <br />would require help from the LRC to redevelop However, it did redevelop on their own <br />Director DeJong stated eminent domain authority for the URA in the Hwy 42 area is no <br />longer an option For 550 McCaslin it might be an option but would require a <br />supermajority of both LRC and Council and the consent of the property owner <br />Director DeJong reviewed the City/LRC Cooperation Agreement. It includes support <br />services for the LRC, states the Council has control of the LRC budget; and Council <br />approves agreements, bonds, and financial commitments of the LRC However, the LRC <br />and the Council are separate political entities. <br />Director DeJong reviewed the agreement with Boulder County (The Tri-Party Agreement) <br />It includes a shareback of TIF revenue at specific levels. No other Boulder County <br />municipality has a similar agreement. <br />Director DeJong reviewed the LRC budget and projections, he noted the budget is <br />approved annually by the Council The 2020 TIF projection is almost $1 M in revenue <br />exceeding expenses. <br />Director DeJong reviewed the tools available for urban renewal authorities in the statute: <br />tax increment financing for property tax or sales tax, facilitating projects, and the ability to <br />fund projects with financial assistance. Director DeJong gave an example of how TIF <br />would be calculated on a hypothetical project. <br />The LRC has assisted in funding five projects to date including the South Street gateway <br />and DELO Core Area Infrastructure Bonds. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated the bonds for the core area were appropriate but she <br />doesn't think there is still blight in the street network. She asked if someone could ask for <br />help to alleviate blight for the same reason now Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated each <br />project would have to do its own analysis and determine its own factors at the time of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.