Mayor Jeremy Fey called the City of Central Council (CCC) meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2023. In attendance were Mayor Jeremy Fey, Mayor Pro-tem Kara Tinucci, Alderman Jeff Aiken, Alderman Marcia Enloe, and Alderman Todd Williams. Staff present included City Manager Daniel R. Miera, City Clerk Reba Bechtel, and City Attorney Marcus McCaskin.

The Consent Agenda included Regular Bill Lists through August 8, the City Council minutes from August 1, 2023, Resolution No. 23-34, authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with RME LTD., LLC, DBA Elite Surface Infrastructure. All were in favor.

The first action item in New Business was a request for scholarship from the Central City Promise Program for Ashley Blondo. Blondo is transferring to Denver Metropolitan University, pursuing a degree in psychology with aspirations to become a therapist. Councilors approved the request for $5,000.

A first reading and public hearing were held for Resolution No. 23-32, “Approving the Conditions Survey for the City of Central Urban Renewal Area 1, making certain legislative findings, approving the City of Central Urban Renewal Plan 1, and authorizing the City of Central Urban Renewal Authority (CCURA) the ability to exercise eminent domain.”

Andy Arnold, Founder of Pioneer Development Company, and Carolynne White of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, were present to speak on the matter.

White reported that the Planning Commission took the opportunity to make suggestions and edits to the Plan (Urban Renewal Plan 1 or UR Plan 1), to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. They suggested that no part of the CCURA Plan would override the City’s code concerning historic preservation.

White explained that an urban renewal authority is the only revenue-raising entity that has the authority of eminent domain and that the current draft in front of the board includes that power. She said, “You never know when you might need it.”

Special requirements apply, though, in order to invoke eminent domain. Areas must have a higher threshold of blight (meaning there must be at least five properties in the conditions survey), give additional notice, and be used only to remedy blighted areas, not for economic development, among other requirements.

She explained a few of the situations in which eminent domain may be useful: when title conditions exist that need to be extinguished because the person or corporation holding the title are hundreds of years old and unfindable; or when there are encumbrances on a property like leases, restrictive covenants, or easements. There is also a penalty for undervaluing property that is sought through a URA.

White emphasized that it is harder for an Urban Renewal Authority to use the power of eminent domain than it is for any other governmental entity that has that power.

White introduced Arnold, who presented the city-wide Conditions Survey that found blight in 54 parcels or 94 acres. Blight must be found and cataloged in the chosen area as defined by law. The Conditions Survey and the Urban Renewal Plan are both required in order to begin an urban renewal project.

Arnold said he considers the term blight as “archaic,” and that it can mean a range of things, such as steep topography, poor street networks, vandalism, abandoned buildings, or even environmental contamination. “Lack of infrastructure is usually the biggest one that I see,” said Arnold.

He emphasized that the Conditions Survey does not target specific properties but rather areas of the Plan Area. Certain factors are geolocated so they can be found within the parcels.

All 11 factors of blight have been found in UR Plan 1. Lacking infrastructure like water or sewer might force those services out into the public domain. Many factors of blight overlap and have to do with dilapidation.

The Planning Commission has ensured that preserving and enhancing the historic character of the City is a priority for CCURA.

White added that nothing in the UR Plan can supersede or override the current land use code and that the Plan is an extra opportunity to offer incentives through private investment to catalyze the desired development. Arnold said, “Development can enhance preservation.”

Fey opened the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Members of the public raised questions about what would happen if their property is in the Plan Area, what would happen if their property is found to have blight, and why these decisions were being made without the election of the rest of the CCURA board.

Counsel responded that they will receive information in the mail on how to alleviate conditions of blight. If a property lies within the approved Plan area, then the property owner can approach the URA for funding to alleviate blight. Proposals will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

When asked about why the CCURA board was making decisions without the rest of the elected members, White responded that it is not a meeting of the CCURA, it is a City Council meeting and it is a city council that approves the Conditions Survey and the UR Plan Area 1. She explained that CCURA lacks any ability or power until an urban renewal plan has been approved by the City Council, the members of which are also members of CCURA.

White explained that the vacancies should be filled by the next regular meeting of the CCURA.

Additionally, the actual activity of an Urban Renewal Authority was discussed. Through a URA, private property owners might be given the opportunity to financially partner with a governmental entity to do what neither might do on their own, with the shared goal of remediating blight in the area.

One resident asked why the blight has been tolerated up to this point at all, and what CCURA hopes to accomplish that the City Council has not been able to remedy, given that it is mostly the same people. Fey replied, “It’s a different set of tools. Urban renewal has a set of tools that the City Council does not.”

Fey closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m.

Williams moved to approve Resolution No. 23-32, Tinucci seconded, and all were in favor. The second reading and public hearing will be held on September 5 during the regular City Council meeting.

The next action item, Downtown Development Authority, was composed of three parts, two ordinances and a resolution. The first was Ordinance No. 23-12, approving creating and establishing the City of Central Downtown Development Authority and determining organizational aspects of the City of Central Downtown Development Authority.

White said that the purpose of a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is to halt any deterioration and to further the Central Business District.

The main revenue of the DDA is tax-increment financing, just like urban renewal. One difference between the two is that the DDA can do tax-increment for 30 years, not just 25 years.

The City can impose five mills of mill levy on behalf of the DDA and that provides the initial startup funding for the DDA to engage in various activities like market studies, marketing properties, prioritizing projects in downtown, and others.

The DDA requires a vote to be formed and it cannot issue debt without the help of the City or an URA.

One activity of a DDA would be persuading businesses to implement improvements to their business. The only residents, property owners, or business owners who will vote on the DDA are those which exist within the boundaries of the DDA.

The DDA can consist of five to eleven members. White recommended five members, all of whom must reside or be a business lessee within the DDA boundaries.

Williams moved to approve and Enloe seconded.

Questions arose concerning those with residential properties in the DDA area. If a property owner is living within the boundaries of the DDA and the mill levy were approved, then the mill levy would apply to both businesses and residents.

Williams asked how the members of the DDA are appointed. White said the City Council appoints four of them, and one is from the City Council.

Fey responded to notions of “taxation without representation,” and said that the purpose of the DDA is to improve the condition of the City. The five mills must be approved by the property owners in the DDA area.

All were in favor of Ordinance No. 23-12.

Enloe read Ordinance No. 23-13, “An ordinance submitting a question of creating the City of Central Downtown Development Authority (CCCDA) to qualified electors of the CCDDA at the November 7, 2023, Special Election, a question exempting revenues collected by or on behalf of the CCDDA from TABOR or statutory revenue limitations, a question authorizing the incurring of obligations for the CCDDA by the City of Central, and a question regarding levying Ad Valorem taxes within the boundaries of the proposed CCDDA, and providing other details in connection therewith.”

White said the Ordinance contains the actual ballot questions. There will be no city debt increase to form the CCDDA. Property taxes are Ad Valorem, or based on the value.

Enloe moved to approve the Ordinance, Williams seconded, and all were in favor. The second reading and public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, September 5 at 7 p.m. during the regular meeting.

Next, Resolution No. 23-33, “A resolution of the City Council of the City of Central, Colorado, approving Amendment No. 4 to the January 11, 2001 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Central Business Improvement District.”

McCaskin said the existing mill levy would not be subject to tax-increment financing. Incremental revenue would flow back to CCBID.

Aiken moved to approve the resolution, Enloe seconded. Fey asked for any questions. This will be the fourth amendment to the IGA. White said the Resolution preserves the status quo as it relates to the DDA mill levy. All were in favor.

Then there was a second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 23-11, designating the site selection of arterial highways, interchanges, and collector highways, and areas around key interchanges, as matters of state interest.

The City’s special counsel, Barbara Green with Sullivan Green Seavy, LLC, responded to questions from City Council regarding the designations set forth in the Ordinance and the City’s 1041 regulations that are currently under development.

Basically, no site selection can be made until the City adopts guidelines or conditionally approves a permit. The regulations ensure that the site selections for arterial highways are compatible with surrounding land uses.

Williams moved to approve the ordinance, Aiken seconded.

Fey opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. and closed it at 9 p.m. A few questions were asked concerning the permits for the I-70 interchange. All were in favor.

During Council Comments, Tinucci mentioned the Great Central City Beer Fest on August 26 and congratulated Central City Opera on a fantastic season. Aiken appreciated the concerns brought forth at the meeting. Fey thanked the Planning Commission for recognizing the importance of historical preservation.

The Public Forum revisited a discussion that was held at the last meeting: the ATV pilot program that may occur on Prospector’s Run. Fey said they would monitor the activity and look to next Spring to possibly bring an ordinance for the pilot program. Residents would like to see the issue put on the ballot.

Residents say they are already negatively affected by the current conditions and operations of ATVs in the area. One resident claimed that the ATVs do damage to the cemetery and endanger the wildlife, peace, and public safety.

Fey adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:24 p.m.

The next Central City Council meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2023, at Central City Hall, 141 Nevada Street, second floor; or online via Zoom. Information can be found on the City website, centralcity.colorado.gov/meetings.