HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2000AGENDA
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
i ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 21, 2000
7:00 p.m.
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Economic
Development and Revitalization Commission on March 21, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference
Room, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. Call The Meeting to Order
2. Roll Call of Members
3. Consideration of Absences
4. Approval of Minutes - February 15, 2000
5. Public Forum (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
6. Unfinished Business
A. Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan - Request for Proposals
7. ` New Business
B. Endorsement of Memo to Governor Owens from Urban Renewal Authorities
C. TCBY and 44"[Upham Properties
8. Adjournment - April 18, 2000
C18arbara\ECODEVO\AGENDAS\000321.wpd
OF WHEAT
City of Wheat Ridge ~ Po
Planning and Development Department
c~C OR POO
Memorandum
TO: EDARC Members
FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director l/',~'~)
~J ~
SUBJECT: City Council Study Session
DATE: March 14, 2000
At City CounciPs study session on Mazch 20, 2000, the subjects of EDARC and economic
development will be discussed. The City Affairs Committee has recommended that the
membership of EDARC be expanded and, as you know, that the economic development function
be assumed by another committee. They have also recommended the hiring of a full time
economic development administrator. Your comments and suggestions about these topics are
welcomed.
You are invited to attend the study session on Monday, March 20th. It will begin at 7:00 in
the Council Chambers.
MINUTES OF WHEAT RIDGE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION COMMISSIOn
FEBRUARY 15, 2000
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The Wheat Ridge Economic Development and Revitalization Commission meeting was
called to order by Chairman ROACH at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commissioners present:
Norm Burkpile
Sandra Collins
John Hall
Elwyn Kiplinger
Janet Leo
Richard Matthews
Margy Platter
Jerry Roach
Also attending were: Valerie Adams, City Manager
Vance Edwazds, City Councilman
Alan White, Planning Director
Martin Orner, Economic Development Specialist
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
3. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
There was consensus of the Commission that the absence of Rae Jean Behm be excused.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner BURKPILE and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS
to approve the minutes of the January 18, 1999 EDARC meeting. The motion carried
unanimously.
5. PUBLIC FORUM
No one appeared to speak.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Scope of Services for Economic Revitalization Plan - Alan White presented this matter
and asked for input from the Commission regazding the outline prepared by staff for a
request for proposal (RFQ). He also invited Commission members to attend a joint meeting
EDARC Minutes
02/IS/00
with the City Council on February 22, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is to revisit
EDARC's role w•ith the new council members.
There was discussion about refining the definition of "economic revitalization plan". There
was a suggestion that the word "economic" could be eliminated from the title. Another
name (Plan to Ensure the Economic Vitality of Wheat Ridge) was also suggested.
There was discussion of the RFQ process:
9 Requests for cjualifications (RFQ) should be sent out before proceeding with requests for
proposals (RFQ's). The RFQ would establish a firm's qualifications.
• A pre-qualification meeting could be held in conjunction with a tour of the city. The
tour would- give prospective applicants an idea of what the city's needs are in prepazing
their proposals. Only serious applicants would be interested in attending such a meeting.
• A vision should be developed for specific azeas of the city for that time when an
opportunity for development or redevelopment occurs. If there is a good idea of what
coald happen in specific azeas such as infrastructure requirements, financing options,
design standazds, etc., it would be helpful in promoting interest in certain properties.
• The RFQ should list other developers the consultant has worked with.
~ There was discussion as to whether consulting firms should be given very specific
criteria as opposed to being given some general ideas that would allow the firms to
respond in their own creative ways. There was some concern that firms would, with a
general type of request, simply take an RFQ they had already prepazed for another
situation and submit it. Requests for proposals should ask for a plan that is visionary but
also functionaL
There was discussion regarding the development of a priority list of sites with the most
potential for the consultant to focus on. It was noted that a group of citizens developed
an economic survey in 1994 which actually became the basis of the current economic
development strategic plan. There was a consensus that the Spartan pad is a very good
example of a property that needs to be evaluated by a consultant.
It was determined that EDARC funds be may be used for planning efforts and site specific
proposals outside of EDARC District.
Staff will continue to refine the scope for the RFQ's based upon input from EDARC as well
as the joint meeting with City CounciL
EDARC Minutes Page 2
02/15/00
V"alerie Adams provided copies of a sun ey which indicated the types of erowth desired b%
citizens in the Denver metro area. She also susieested that consideration be ~-nx en to the cii%
becomin_ a member of the ICMA's Smart Gro«th Nemork. She prm ided copies of
information reQarding this oreanization.
Alan White provided copies of a CML survey that dealt with urban renewal areas and tools.
such as tax increment financing, which have been used by other municipalities.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner
COLLINS that the requesYfor qualification focus on redevelopment of the Spartan
pad, not to preclude the environment of the Spartan pad.
Jerry Roach offered a frieadly amendment that, in addition to the focus on the Spartan
pad, other areas considered to be important may also be included. The amendment
was accepted and the motion carried unanimously.
There was consensus of the Commission that Jerry Roach attend the meeting on Februazy
17, to formulate plans for the joint meeting with City Council on Februan, 22. There was a
consensus that good communication between EDARC and the City Council will be
beneficial in moving forward with a revitalization plan.
Vance Edwards stated that the Public Works Advisory Committee (PWAC) wi11 be
evaluating the comprehensive design policy statement regazding streetscaping, community
development block grants, etc. to come up with recommended streetscapes in the City. This
evaluation will include the Wadsworth Corridor Study. PWAC wants to be active in
working with EDARC and other boazds and commissions in the development of this policy.
B. Propertv Acquisitions - Staff will gather inFormation on the properties and report back to
EDARC at the March meeting.
7. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
8. ADJOURNMENT_
It was moved by Commissioner BURKPILE and seconded by Commissioner
MATTHEWS that the meeting be adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously.
JERRY ROACH
Chair
EDARC Minutes
02/15/00
Ann Lazzeri
Recording Secretary
Page 3
. OF W~_~.o
City of Wheat Ridge
Planning and Development Department
Memorandum
TO: EDARC Members
FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director DD~
SUBJECT: Scope of Services - Town Center Revitalization Plan
DATE: Marcfi 14, 2000
Attached is the DRAFT Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Town Center Revitalization Plan.
The RFP contains a lot of boilerplate sections which you may not be interest in. The RFP up to
page 7 contains some background material and the proposed scope of work. Your comments
and suggestions on these sections at the March 21" meeting would be helpful.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
RFP # 00-13
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
TO
DEVELOP THE WHEAT RIDGE TOWN CENTER
REVITALIZATION PLAN
PROPOSAL OPENING DATE: .2000
PROPOSAL OPENING TIME:
INDEX OF CONTENTS
1.
TITLE PAGE
II:
INDEX OF CONTENTS
III.
PROPOSAL NOTICE
IV.
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS/SELECTION CRITERIA
V.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
VI.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
VII.
SIGNATURE PAGE
ATTACHMENTS:
• Map of Urban Renewal Area
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 2
Request for Proposal
III. PROPOSAL NOTICE
The City of Wheat Ridge. Colorado, by and through its Purchasing Agent, is accepting proposals fiom
professional consultants to develop and create a Wheat Ridge Town Center Reaitalization Plan.
Proposals will be received until
submitting proposals will be read aloud.
at which time only the names of the firnis
Proposals shall be in a sealed envelope, plainly mazked "WHEAT RIDGE TOWN CENTER
REVITALIZATION PLAN: RFP #00-13" and returned to:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
ATTN: PURCHASING
7500 W. 29T" AVENUE
WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215
All proposals shall be submitted with an original and eleven (11) copies for a total of twelve (12)
complete sets.
No Proposal will be considered which is received after the time mentioned, and any Proposal so received
shall be returned to the Proposer unopened and will not be considered under any circumstances. Sole
responsibility rests with the Proposer to see that their Proposal is received on time at the stated location.
Any modification or withdrawal of a Proposal, prior to the opening of Proposals, is subject to the same
conditions stated above, except that withdrawal of a Proposal by telegraphic or electronic transmission is
acceptable. A Proposal may also be withdrawn in person by a Proposer or its authorized representative,
provided identification is supplied and a receipt is signed for the Proposal, but only if the withdrawal is
made prior to the exact time set for receipt of Proposals.
The City of Wheat Ridge reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals or any part thereof, to waive
any formalities or informalities and further, to award the Proposal deemed to be in the best interest of the
City.
Any questions conceming this Request for Proposal shall be directed to:
Mia Mascitelli, Purchasing Aeent (303) 235-2811 or
Alan C. White, Director of Planning and Development, (303) 235-2844
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 3
Request for Proposal .
IV. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS/SELECTION CRITERIA
RFP #00-13
WHEAT RIDGE TOWN CENTER REVITALIZATION PLAN
A. INTRODUCTION:
The residents of Wheat Ridge, its elected officials, and staff are committed to the revitalization of
commercial areas within the City. This began several yeazs ago with the creation of an urban renewal area.
A portion of the urban renewal azea has not been redeveloped. This request for proposal and qualifications
will assist the City in completing the urban renewal project.
B. OVERVIEW:
In light of the above, the Ciry Council has authorized the CiTy Manager to seek proposals for a professionai
consultant to develop a comprehensive, understandable revitalization plan for a portion of the urban renewal
area.
Who Are We?
The City of Wheat Ridge is a mature thriving community in the Denver metropolitan area that has a rich
history and a bright future. Although the area has been steadily developing post World Waz II, it
incorporated in 1969 in part to retain its chazacter and unique identity within the metropolitan Denver area.
Within the City of Wheat Ridge exists a thriving industrial azea, which is located primazily along the I-70
corridor. Throughout Wheat Ridge are residential neighborhoods which provide a variety of housing
choices several commercial azeas aze located throughout the community; many of which were developed
30 yeazs ago. These commercial areas need to remain active because the City imposes a real estate property
tax,_the City's revenue sources are dependent upon retail sales and use taxes.
In 1981, the City of Wheat Ridge formed the Town Center Urban Renewal Area. This area is bounded
generally by 3811 Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard, 44" Avenue, and Upham Street (see attached map). In
1996, the City and the Economic Development and Revitalization Commission (EDARC, the urban renewal
authority of the City) entered into negotiations with a developer to redevelop the southern half of the urban
renewal area. This project, known as the Safeway Market Place, was the first undertaken in the urban
renewal area. In 1997, the Urban Renewal area was expanded to include 2.5 acres at the northwest comer
of the Wadsworth and 44th Avenue intersection.
The northem half of the urban renewal azea remains essentially as it was when originally constructed in the
late 1950's and mid-1960's. A parcel on which a discount store was destroyed by fire in 1967 has never
redeveloped. Town Center Park, in the center of the Urban Renewal Area, was constructed in the mid-
1980's along with F Bank at the corner of 44" and Wadsworth.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan . Page 4
Request for Proposal
2. W1iat Have We Done?
The City has recently completed the Wadsworth Conidor study to identify possible inYrastruc[ure
improvements, redevelopment opportunities, and design possibilities along Wadsworth, including the urban
renewal area.
Revitalization of the northern half of the urban renewal area is a high priority economic development project
for the City. The urban renewal area designation expires in 2006. The Ciry and EDARC must act quickl}
to develop and implement a plan in order to capture any potential sales and property tax increments. The
City is seeking the services of a qualified consultant with proven experience in preparing and implementing
revitalization plans for older commercial areas.
This plan will be developed with a committee made up of elected officials,'appointed officials. City staff
members, and members of the business and development communities who have been given this task b} the
City Council. The consultant will assist this committee and bring forth the creativity and experience to
develop this revitalization plan.
Where are We Goine?
The City of Wheat Ridge anticipates the future with optimism as it prepares to meet the 21 " Century. To
be ready to serve the needs of our community; the elected officials and staff believe it is imperative to
develop this revitalization plan.
C. SCOPE OF 5ERVICES:
Task 1- Inventory of Existing Conditions
The consultant will need to collect information about the urban renewal azea and the revitalization
area in order to gain an understanding of the challenges and opportunities of the plan area. This
should be an extensive inventory of current conditions affecting land use, tenants, utilities,
ownership, leases; taxes, building conditions,'and similar information.
This information will need to be analyzed in order to identify the need for major investment
opportunities and needs. The information should be presented in a concise, easily understood
format
Task 2 - Market Study
In order to identify potential tenants, the consultant will conduct a market study for the revitalization
area. The study will include an analysis of competing areas both inside and outside the City, and the
potential for servicing existing businesses in the City. Tfie mazket study will identify potential major
tenants, demographics, their square footage needs, and other site requirements.
This effort will require consultation with real estate developers and potential tenants. It is the City's
intent to work with the actual developer in creating and finalizing the revitalization plan.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page
Request for Proposal
Task 3- Develop Revitalization Plan Alternatives
The consultant will develop at least three distinct revitalization plan altematives showing building
footprints: square footages; parking, circulation, and loading areas; landscaped areas including
plazas, courts, or other public areas; pedestrian circulation; and site details including signage,
fumishings, and lighting.
It is anticipated that the consultant will present the alternatives in graphic and computer eenerated
form in a manner to cleazly indicate the major elements of the plan.
Task 4- Develop Preferred Revitalization Plan
After pubic review of the alternatives, the consultant will prepare tHe preferred revitalization plan.
This plan will include the following elements:
Site Plan - showing the building footprints, squaze footages, and major tenants; landscaping; parking
and circulation; lighting; pedestrian azeas; and signage. As part of this plan, a set of design
guidelines will be prepared. It is intended that the revitalization plan be presented in graphic form
with supporting sketches, photo simulations, or models.
Injrastructure Plan - showing the new or expanded utility connections needed to serve the
development including: water, wastewater, storm water, and roadway infrastructure.
Cost and Revenue Estimates - for construction of all the elements of the site and infrastructure and
the estimated revenues derived from the sales, use, and property taxes generated by the new
development This will include a cost/benefit analysis showing the City's potential return on
investment in the area.
Phasing Plan - indicating the sequencing of development and improvements within, and adjacent
to the revitalization area.
Imp[ementation Plan - identifying funding sources, infrastructure construction responsibilities,
regulation changes, and a time line for completion of the project. This will include an identificafion
of the elements of the plan to be implemented by the City and the private sector.
It is anticipated that the plan will be prepared in report format with accompanying graphic and
tabular materials which effectively communicate the findings and recommendations of the pian.
Task 5- Public Participation Program
It is important for this plan to be prepazed with the involvement of City officials and staff,
landowners and tenants of the azea, board and commission members of the City, adjacent property
landowners and residents, and other interested parties. The consultant will design a public
participation program to include methods for collecting comments and suggestions throughout the
process of developing the pla.n. Frequent meetings with staff and public officials aze anticipated as
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 6
Request for Proposal
well as public presentations at critical stages ofthe planning process. Involvement bN the consultant
will include presentations before commissions and the City Council for the purpose of adoption.
This Scope of Services is intended to provide only a eeneral outline of the work tasks to be performed. The
consultant should supply details to this scope of services as necessary to convey the consultant's approach
to developing the revitalization plan. Creative and innovative approaches to this project are encouraged.
D. SELECTION PROCESS:
The procurement process for these services will be based upon a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS)
process. The award of an agreement will be made to the consultant offering a proposal which best meets
the needs af the City.
Each qualified proposal will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
A. Quality of proposal and specific approach.
B. Credentials of firm and demonstrated ability in similar projects.
C. Costs to the City of Wheat Ridge to assist the City and create the final product
A short list will be created based on this evaluation process. Firms on this short list will be required to
interview and make a presentation before the selection committee to further present their qualifications and
ideas in a visual form using examples from previous similaz work as well as presenting creative ideas for
this project.
Final selection will be based on the best proposal and presentation/interview which best meets the needs of
the City.
E. SCHEDULE:
We know that time is a valuable commodity and that this type of project, if done right, will take both
patience and time. Yet, time is of the essence for us and the schedule is imperative to the success of this
project.
To help us understand how you propose to move us along in this project in a timely manner, please outline
a timetable in calendar days for all steps of the proposed project. Please be sensitive to length of time spent
on this project and the number of ineetings proposed to accomplish our final goals.
This project is anticipated fo be a limited term assignment. Ideally, we would like to start the project in June
2000, with an anticipated compietion date of late May 2001.
F. COST:
Please estimate the time and expense for each proposed step. This section should include total hours and
all direct and indirect costs.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 7
Request for Proposal
V. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
PROPOSAL OPENING AND AWARD
Only the names of proposers will be read at the opening: Proposals will be examined promptlN, after
opening. An abstract will be provided upon request. No proposal may be withdrawn for a period
of sixty (60) calendar days of the Proposal Opening date.
2. TAXES
The City of Wheat Ridge is exempt from City, County, State and Federal Sales/Excise Taxes.
Certificates will be issued upon request. Any appropriate taxes shall be shown as a separate item
in your Proposal. '
PROPOSER OUALIFICATIONS
No proposal shall be accepted from, and no contract will be awarded to any person, firm or
corporation that is in arreazs to the City of Wheat Ridge, upon debt or contract that is a defaulter, as
surety or otherwise, upon any obligation to the City or that is deemed irresponsible or unreliable by
the City. If requested, Proposers shall be required to submit satisfactory evidence that they have a
practical knowledge of the particular supply/service bid upon, and that they have the necessary
financial resources to provide the proposed supply/service called for as described in the attached
Section IV, Information for Proposals.
4. RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE
The City reserves the right to investigate and confirm the proposer's financial responsibility. This
may include financial statements, bank references, and interviews with past consultants, employees
and creditors. Unfavorable responses to these investigations are grounds for rejection of the
proposal.
NO COMMITMENT BY CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
This Request for Proposal does not commit the City of Wheat Ridge to award any costs, pay any
costs, or to award any contract, or to pay any costs associated with or incurred in the prepazation of
the Proposal to this request, or to procure or contract for services or suppiies. In acceptance of
proposals, the City of Wheat Ridge reserves the right to negotiate further with one or more of the
contractors as to any features of their proposal and to accept modifications of the work and price
when such action will be in the best interest of the City. This includes solicitation of a best and finai
offer from one or more of the proposers.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 8
Request for Proposal
6. PROPOSAL REPRESENTATION
Each Proposer must sign the proposal with their usual signature and shall eive their full business
address on the form provided in this Proposal. Proposals by partnerships shall be signed with tlie
partnership name b} one of the members or by an authorized representatiee. Proposals h\
corporations shall be signed with the name of the corporation followed by the signature and
designation of the President, Secretary, or other person autharized to bind it in the matter and shall
have the corporate seal affixed thereto.
ANTI-COLLUSION CLAUSE
No officer or employee of the City of Wheat Ridge, and no other public official, or employee, who
may exercise any function or responsibilities in the review or approval of this undertal:ing shall have
any personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or negotiation process thereof.
The above compliance request will be part of all City of Wheat Ridge contracts for this Service.
8. PROPOSAL REJECTION OR PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE
The City reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals. The City further reserves the right to waive
technicalities and formalities, as well as to accept in whole or in part such Proposal where it is
deemed advisable in protection of the best interests of the City.
9: LAWS AND REGULATIONS
All applicable State of Colorado and Federal laws, City and County ordinances, licenses and
regulations shall apply to the awazd throughout and incorporated here by reference.
10. SUBCONTRACTING
No portion of this Proposal may be subcontracted without the prior written approval by the City.
11. TELEGR4PHIGELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
Telegraphic and/or Proposal offers sent by electronic devices are not acceptable and will be rejected
upon receipt. Proposing firms wili be expected to allow adequate time for delivery of their Proposal
either by air freight, postal service, or other means.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 9
Request for Proposal
VI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
No modification of award shall be binding upon the City unless made in writina and siened bti
authorized agents of both parties.
2. CANCELLATION
Either party may cancel the awazd in the event that a petition, either voluntary or involuntary, is filed
to declare the other party bankrupt or insolvent or in the event that such party makes an assignment
for the benefit of creditors.
3. TERMINATION OF AWARD FOR CAUSE
If, through any cause, the successful Proposer shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner it's
obligations or if the successful Proposer shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or
stipulations of the awazd, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate the awazd by giving
written notice to the successful Proposer of such termination and specifying the effective date of
termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished services, reports or other materials prepared by
the successful Proposer shail, at the option of the Agency, become its property, and the successful
Proposer shall be entitled to receive just, equitable compensation for any satisfactory work
completed, prepared documents or materials as furnished.
Notwithstanding the above, the successful Proposer shall not be relieved of liability to the City for
damage sustained by the City by virtue of breach of the awazd by the successful Proposer and the
City may withhold any payments to the successful vendor for the purpose of setting-off until such
time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the successful Proposer is determined.
4. TERMINATION OF AWARD FOR CONVENIENCE
The City may terminate the award at any time by giving written notice to the successful vendor of
such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) working days before
the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished services, reports,
material(s) prepared or fumished by the successful Proposer under the award shall, at the option of
the City, become its property. If the awazd is terminated by the City as provided herein, the
successful vendor will be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as
the services actually performed or material furnished bear to the total services/materials the
successful Proposer covered by the award, less payments of compensation previously made. If the
award is terminated due to the fault of the successful Proposer, termination of award for cause,
relative to termination shall apply.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 10
Reques[ for Proposal
EOUAL OPPORTUNITY
The successful firm will agree not to refuse to hire, discharge, promote, demote, or to othernise
discriminate in matters of compensation against any person otherwise qualified sole]} because of
race, creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, or physical handicap.
It shall be a condition that any company, firm, or corporation supplying goods or services, must be
in compliance with the appropriate areas of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as enacted,
and from time-to-time amended, and any other applicable Federal regulation. A siened, written
certificate' stating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act may be required, upon
request by the City.
COMMON LANGUAGE
Unless otherwise specified in this document, all words shall have a common language unless the
context in which they are used cleazly requires a different meaning. Words in the singular number
include the plural, and in the plural include the singular. Additionally, words in the masculine
gender include the feminine and the neuter, and when the sense so indicates, wo.rds of the neuter
gender may refer to any gender.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
All information included in any Proposal that is of a proprietary nature must be clearlv marked as
such. The City shall be held harmless from any claims azising from the release of proprietary
information not cleazly designated as such by the proposing firm.
8. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTEGRITY
To prevent biased evaluations and to preserve the competitiveness and integrity of such acquisition
efforts, offerors are to direct all communications regarding this Proposal to the Purchasing Agent,
unless otherwise specifically noted. Attempts by offering firms to circumvent this requirement will
be viewed negatively and may result in rejection of the offer of the firm found to be in non-
compliance.
The successful Proposer shall effect the insurance policies in a company or companies and in a form
satisfactory to the Owner. Before commencing any perfoxmance under this Agreement, successful
Bidder shall deliver, to the City, Certificates of Insurance issued by the insurance company; and/or
its duly authorized agents pertaining to the aforementioned insurance, and certifying that the policies
stipulated above are in full force and effect
All policies and/or Certificates of Insurance shall include each individual entity as an additional
named insured.
Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any of the protections to which the
Agencies may be entitled pursuant to the Colorado Govemmental Immunity Act, Sections 24-10-
101, C.R.S., as amended.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitaliiation Plan Page I 1
Requestfor Proposal
Workers' Compensation Insurance - The contractor shall provide workers' compensation insurance
coverage for all persons employed to perform the work to be done under the contract and assure that
all workers will receive the compensation for compensable injuries. A cop}' of the workers
compensation policy is required to be submitted to the City as part of this Proposal.
Professional Liability Insurance - Evidence ofProfessional Liability Insurance will be required upon
award of the project
9. PROPOSAL FORMAT
All responses to this Request For Proposal shail use the respondents format except or those pages
which have blanks to be filled in by the respondent or those pages marked for return with proposal.
Proposals may be rejected by the City if the firm fails to completely fill in all blanks for evaluation
of the proposal or fails to answer all questions. Proposal should be submitted initially on the most
favorable terms.-
10. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION
THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE:
Reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to accept other than the low bid.
2. Reserves the right to waive minor defects or technicalities regarding the proposals.
3. Reserves the right to alter the scope of work and Request For Proposal
documents untii a contract is executed.
11. MISCELLANEOUS
There is in effect within the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Section 2-4 of the City's Code of Laws
which limits the amount for which the City shall be liable to the amount expressly appropriated by
the City Council, either through budgeted appropriation, or contract or bid awazd. The Contractor
is specifically advised of this Section 2-4 ofthe Code of Laws. This Contract, is specifically subject
to the provisions ofsaid Code Section.
Funding of this contract for any time period after January 1, of the yeaz succeeding the date of entry
of this contract is expressly contingent upon appropriations being made by the City Council of the
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. No promise, expressed or implied, is made that such funding will
be approved by the City Council, acting in its legislative discretion.
Wheat Ridge Town Center Revitalization Plan Page 12
Request for Proposal
VII. SIGNATURE PAGE
RFP #00-13
The undersigned, having examined these documents. and having full knowledge of the condition under
which the work described herein must be performed, hereby proposes that he will fulfill the obligations
contained herein in accordance with all information, instructions, and terms and conditions set forth: and
that he will fumish all required products and/or services and pay ail incidental costs in strict conformity " ith
these documents, for the stated fees.
Submitting Firm:
Address:
City
State
Zip Code
Telephone Number:
Name of Authorized Agent (prinUtype):
Title
Authorized Signature:
Date:
Attest:
CORPORATESEAL
Fax Number:
ADDENDA FORM
The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt ofthe following applicable addenda (ifNONE writeNONE):
Addenda Number Date
Wheat Ridge Town Center RevitalizationPlan Page 13
Request for Proposal
/E wh~A .
City of Wheat Ridge
Planning and Development Department /
/
o,R
:.oc
c
Memorandum `
TO: EDARC Members
FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director DW
SUBJECT: Endorsement of Memo to Governor Owens
DATE: March 14, 2000
I recently attended a meeting of urban renewal agency officials. Several items were discussed at
this meeting, including the powers of urban renewal agencies. One of the questions unanswered
in current legislation is the ability for an urban renewal agency to issue tax increment bonds.
Although the City has not used this financing mechanism in the past, it needs to be available to
us as an option should we wish to consider it in the future.
The purpose of the memorandum to the Govemor is to request that he submit the question
directly to the State Supreme Court to render a decision. As the letter from the Colorado
Municipal League states, projects in several jurisdictions are stalled pending this opinion.
Projects in Wheat Ridge could be affected. I am requesting that EDARC endorse the submission
of the memorandum to the Governor and authorize the Chairman and me to provide our
signatures in support.
_
~V1
:J
\ . z~
V
~I n
Gl~i
l
D E h V E R
U R B A IJ
R E ti E W A L
AUTHORIT1'
Rrs~drnnal and Canm:r.;w,•'
P.rsncuu:n en.i Rrn;wal
1555 C. I Lil'JNSI I $TIti:ET. l',ITI1 'UU
DLV\'LN. (.JLOItiUO 60_'0?
'303 534-3d72 •FAS'30: ;34-7301
TDD .{CCLSi :\\':\ILI6L6
hlarcii 6, 3000
Mr. Aian White
Wl:eac Ridge Econ. Dev. S
Kevitalization Commision
7500 W. 29" Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 30315
Dear M:. Rlhite,
~
7hank you fcr itrendiag the lunchzon on the 23`". It was an important opportuniry to come together as
a8rcup mid beoin a dialogue on issues afFecting the Cuturz of urban rer.ewaf and down!own . development aur4orities in Colorado. During the meeting, we noted a number of ideas on nest steus io
pursuz and areas of focus. Attached piease find a list of these items.
[n addition, we discussed the importance of collectino. project photographs ior the statewide database.
ff you Iiave beforz and after pliotographs ef projects in your comnuni[y, please send copies and a
paragrph describing zach project by Eriday, Nlarch 28'h. We will see that they are inctuded in tLe
packet io: Govemor O:vens' review.
Cus:ntly, many of us have projec?s that ar: on hold due to le-al issues affectine our capacity to issue
tax increment financin_ bonds. As we discussed in the meeting, it would be useful to inchidt these
potentiai projects in our database az well az in the presentation ro be made to Govemor Owen;. IE;nis
is the case in your commur.iry, please send us a description of the project with a phoeograph of the
r.roJect 2rea in its ecrrent sta[e.
h?aay of you expressed your support for the draft memorandum ro Govemor Owens ar,d will be
takng it to your boards and councils for endorsement. Signatures from [he Executive Director as well
as from your board or City Council members would be very helpful. Please maii us [he signatnres ot
endorsement on your organizations letterhead by Friday, March 23'". These signa!t:re pages will
be attached to the memorandum. Our mailing address is Denver Urban Renewal Authority
Attn: Sarah Rapalyea
1555 Califomia Street
Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
For Uhose of .•eu who tixve already si_ned the memorsndum, thank you. if you have comments on [he documeat, please direct ihem [o Gene Honensze bv Monday, March (3`". VIc Hchensee's number a:
Anold and Porter is 303-863-2317. He can oe reached by fax at 303-832-0428. .
Once those are set, we will contact you with more informa[ion.
We are currendy working ro set up meetinas with Governor Owens and Attorney General Salazar.
Mc White
Pa,-,e Two
Msrch 6, 2000
. We havz tentativzly schedulzd W"zdnzsday, Mny I"for eur ne:[ meeting. Sy this time we hope m.
have met witS Govemor Owens and .47orne}' Ger.eral Salazar.
We will continue to compile information for the database and wiil get copies to you by the first week
of April. Your input is gready valueri in this process. If you have comisens or nues.ions please
contact project leads Jackie Paclteco oL Sarali Rapalyea in our cffice. Their emaii addresses are:
achejm(@ci.dem er.co.us
ra2als2c i. den ver. co.us
Again. d,ank yeu fr; _•nurparric±pad~a :n *.his imporant er.deaver.
Sincerely,
,
I
Tracy Hvggins
Executive Director
' .
LEG[SLAZ'ION
• Establish our oNvn legislative a-enda
o Ideati:y what we want to accornplish Aith lel-:slatie❑
• Ask the question and dztine the aaswer as a hrs: step
o Discuss benefit of self-regulat:on
• Formalize legislative tracidng system
o Deveiop system of ecn:n:unication aznongst one anothe* during the
leeislative sess;on
FDUCATION= ItiTERN,4L AND E.l'Tr,R'dAL
• Create a central database of statewide projects and redevelopment inforniation
that would cover: •
o Statewide organization information, number of projects, revenue created,
bcfure and after photographs
o List of current statewide projects proposed and underway with contact
information
c Case.studies on lessons leamed with contact information
• Develop a PR packet on the statewide impact of Urban Renewal and Downtown
Development Authorities' work
e Enl:ana: the effort rot,,ducate the Leais:ature, Cih~~ Council: and tI:e public on.
whaf: uroan renewal s. Pus inclueies what is considered blight, huw ta.e increment
fii:ancin- works; and how aad wheir condemnatiun is used
• Develop regular educaeional seminars on TIF for city staffs; commissioners,. etc.
COALITION $UILDING
• Institute regulaz meetings amon.ast redevelopment leaders
• Identify who our constituents and supporters aze and expand our relationships
with them
• Identify the negative issues related to urban renewal and downtown devefopment
authorities' activities and develop responses to those concems
MEMORANDUM
TO: Troy Eid, Chief Counsel to Govemor Owens
FROM: The Persons and Entities Listed on Appendix A
DATE: February 2000
RE: Solving Uncertainty for Urban Renewal Authorities and Tax Increment Financing
I. Introduction
The recent court decisions in Boazd of County Commissioners v. Broomfield, P.2d
(Colo.App. November 12, 1999) (herein, the "Broomfield case") and In Re Interrogatories on H.B.
99-1325, 979 P.2d 549 (Colo. 1999) (herein, the "Interrogatories case")have made it difficult to use
tax increment financings for urban renewal projects throughout our State. This unceztainty could not
come at a more inopportune time: at no other time in our State's history have redevelopment and
urban renewal taken on such importance in the public policy azena. At a time when our State is
facing unprecedented growth and urban sprawl, "smart growth" proponents in both political parties
understand that redevelopment and renewal of in-fill sites aze powerful antidotes for the seemingly
endless geographic reaches of our urban azeas.
Set forth below is an overview of tax increment financing, a summary of the Broomfield and
InterroQatories decisions, the practical impact of this uncertainty, and the proposed solution to the
resolution of the issue through an In±errogatory from the Governo: to the Colorado Supreme Court.
II. Urban Renewal Authorities
The Colorado Urban Renewal Law, title 31, article 25, part 1(the "Urban Renewal Law")
provides for the creation of urban renewal authorities by municipalities in the State of Colorado. An
urban renewal authority is an entity sepazate and apart from the municipality, constituting a corporate
body under state law.
Once established, urban renewal authorities aze authorized to assist in the prevention and
elimination of blight in the municipality. A blighted azea is defined to include any azea that, by
reason of certain statutory factors, impairs the growth of a municipality, siows the provision of
housing or otherwise constitutes a threat to public health, safety, morals or weifaze. The statutory
factors include a variety of items, such as deteriorating, dilapidated or unsafe sites, structures or
improvements; defective street or lot layout; unsanitary or unsafe conditions; unusual topography;
and enVironmental contamination.
99999\1831565820.4
Memorandum to Troy Eid
February 2000
Elimination of a blighted azea is accomplished through the adoption by the governing body of
a municipality of one or more urban renewal plans addressing proposed stratesies and activities to
eliminate blight within particulaz urban renewal azeas. In adopting an ur6an renewal plan, the
municipality must make findings, among others, to the effect that the azea is bliQhted, the plan
conforms to the general plan of the municipality as a whole, and ihat the plan will afford maximum
opportunity for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the area by private enterprise. The urban
renewal plan may also contain a provision providing for tae increment financing.
From a historical perspective, urban renewal projects throughout the State have been diverse.
The revitalizatiun of the former Denver wa•rehouse distr•ict, which constitutes Eh:, now thriving
Lower powntown Denver, was initiated as an urban renewal project. Similarly, much of the
revitalization of the Town of Estes Pazkresulting from the Lawn Lake flood was done as an urban
renewal project. The City of Delta instituted the Delta Urban Renewal Authority as a vehicle to
resurrect a failing city economy once driven by a now defunct coal mining industry. The Delta
Urban Renewal Authority has created the "City of Murals" public art program, a building facade
renovation program, a visitor's center located in an historic building, a history museum and
community center, and several mini-pazks throughout the downtown azea. And the Denver Urban
Renewal Authority has undertaken multiple projects in Downtown Denver, contributing to iu status
as one of the models for cities across the country.
More recently, urban renewal projects have included reclamation of"brownfields" (e.g., the
closed Air Force Accounting Center in northeast Denver), preservation of historic buildings (e.g., the
Forney Museum), and redevelopment of neighUorhoods (e.g., the closed St. Luke's Hospital). And
urban renewal is nut just a"big city" mldertaking; there aze 25 urban renewal authorities throughout
the State, which have previously completed and are attempting to undertake a wide range of projecU.
A representative list of urban renewal projects is contained in Appendix B hereto.
III. Tax Increment Financing
Urban renewal plans typically provide the financing appazatus for the infrastructure and
related capital improvements needed to assist in the urban renewal project. Urban renewal
authorities have no tasing powers, and the source of their funding usually comes from the issuance
of bonds or from tax increment revenues.
If a municipality elects to do so, it may include, within the urban renewal plan, provisions
relative to "tax increment financing.". If this is included, the financing may relate to increases in
either property taxes levied by the overiapping taxing jurisdictions which tax real property within the
urban renewal area (typically, the municipality, county and school district), or to the municipality's
sales taxes; or both.
99999\I83\565820.4 _Z_
Memorandum to Troy Eid
February 2000
If a property taY provision is included in the urban renewal plan, then a"base" is established
which is equal to the assessed value of the properry within the urban renewal azea for the yeaz prior
to when the urban renewal plan is adopted. If, as a result of subsequent development in the, area, the
assessed value of property increases, then the property taxes aze split. The taxing jurisdictions
receive the taYes attributable to the assessed valuation base, and the urban renewal authority receives
the revenues attributable to taxes generated by the incremental increase in assessed valuation (hence
the term, "tax increment revenues"). Increases in assessed valuation due solely to a general
reassessment and not development aze pro-rated. In short, tax increment financing is cazefully
crafied to utilize only those revenues which result directly from projecu azid activities of the urban
renewal authority; other taxing entities aze protected by the continued receipt of revenues attributable
to the "base."
Similazly, if a sales tax provision is included in the urban renewal plan, a"base" is
established which is equal to the total municipal sales tax collections received from the urban
renewal azea during the twelve month period prior to when the plan is adopted. The municipality
continues to receive this amount, but subsequent increases in municipal sales tax revenues go to the
urban renewal authority.
Urban renewal authorities aze authorized to issue bonds to finance urban renewal projects.
The bonds aze typically payable from tax increment revenues received pursuant to the mechanism
described above. Tax increment revenues must be used, under the Urban Renewai Law, to pay
bonds or meet other obligations of the urban renewal authority. As an alternative to issuing bonds,
an urban renewal authority may enter into an agreement with the developer whereby the urban
renewal authority reimburses the developer for infrastructure costs as an obligation payable from the
tax increment revenue. Since the urban renewal authorities have no taeing powers, these methods
(bonds and reimbursement agreements) aze often the only forms of funding available.
The urban renewal law was enacted in 1958; the ability to use tax increment financing for
urban renewal projects was added to the law in 1975, and has been commonly used throughout the
state since the eazly 1980's. The constitutionality of tax increment financing was tested and upheld
by the Colorado Supreme Court in Denver Urban Renewal Authoriry v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo.
1980).
IV. Urban Renewal Authorities and the TABOR Amendment
The adoption of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado
Constitution (TABOR) raised several issues with respect to urban renewal authorities that stili
remain today. These relate to whether elections must be held with respect to certain matters, which
99999\ 1 83\565820.4
' _3_
Memorandum to Troy Eid
February 2000
in tum largely depends upon whether urban renewal authorities aze "districts" for purposes of
TABOR.
In particulaz, the following two issues relative to TABOR and urban renewal authorities need
resolution:
l. Is an election required for urbazi renewal authorities to issue bonds or enter into multi-
fiscal year obligations, and if so, what electors would vote in such an election?
2. Is She adoption of an. urban renewal plan that contains a tax increment financing
provision a"tax policy change" that results in a net increase iu revenues to a district?
Under TABOR, elections aze needed by "districts" to, among other things, (i) incur debt or
other multi-fiscal yeaz obligations or (ii) impiement a tax policy change which results in a net
increase in revenues to a district. Therefore, if an urban renewal authority is a district, it would need
voter approval to issue bonds or incur other multi-fiscal yeaz obligations. Similarly, there might
have to be an election if inclusion of a tax increment provision constitutes a"tax policy change."
A"district" is defined as "the state or any local govemment, excluding enterprises."
Accordingly, if an urban renewal authority is not a district for TABOR purposes, then no election
would be required for the matters described above.
Based on the definition of district, urban renewal authorities would not be included within the
definition of a district if they do not constitute "local govemments." Even if they aze local
governments, if they constitute "enterprises," then they aze outside of the definition of district.
An "enterprise" is defined as (i) a government owned business, (ii) which is authorized to
issue its own revenue bonds, and (iii) which receives less than 10% of its annual revenues in "grants"
from all Colorado state and local govemments combined.
V. Broomfietd/TRANS Interrogatories
A lawsuit was brought against Broomfield in connection with one of its urban renewal
projects. This suit has been pending for several yeazs. It challenged a number of issues, including
whether an election was needed in order for the municipality to approve an urban renewal plan
containing a tax increment provision. It was hoped that this case might be a vehicle to provide some
certainty as to the status of urban renewal authorities under TABOR. However, the case was
dismissed at the state Court of Appeals level on a procedural standing issue, rather than being
substantively decided. Boulder County filed a petition for certiorari which is still pending before the
99999\ 1 83\565820.4
_4_.
Memorandum to Troy Eid
February 2000
Colorado Supreme Court, but even if the petition is accepted, it is not expected that it will result in a
substantive (as opposed to procedural) decision.
In addition, the recent Interrogatories case also put into question whether obligations can be
incurred by districts without an election under TABOR even if the obligations aze subject to annual
appropriation.
Since the initiation of the Broomfield case, and the recent opinion in flie InterroQatories case,
few urban renewal.projects aze being successfully completed and those which aze done aze highly
ineffic:ent from a fiaancial perspect:ve. Following the Court of Appeals decision in 1994 in Bo :rd
of Gountv Commissioners v. Dougherty Dawkins, 890 P1d 199 (Colo.App. 1994) and prior to the
decision in the InterroQatories case, it was believed that utilization of tax increment financing which
was subject to "annual appropriation" would be pemussible under TABOR. The Interrogatories case
now casts doubt on the continuing viability of annual appropriation obligations.
VI. Practical Impacts of the Uncertainty, Including the Effect upon the Governor's Smart
Growth Agenda
Three key components of the Govemor's smart growth plan would be affected by the current
state of uncertainty with regard to the use of tax increment financing by urban renewal authorities:
development of in-fill sites, also known as land recycling,
the encouragement of rehabilitation or renovation of blighted areas, and
the creation of "Colorado entrepreneurship azeas" to tazget economically
depressed azeas of the state.
Historically each of these azeas would have been given strong consideration for tax increment
financing by an urban renewal authoriry, but the combination of the cases described above, the
likelihood that cases similaz to Broomfield will be brought again, and the lack of judicial guidance in
this azea have resulted in bond counsel presently being unable to provide unqualified approving
opinions and the capital mazkets being reluctant to purchase bonds backed by tax increments due to
such uncertainties. The result has been that a valuable redevelopment tool, tax increment financing,
which is one of the few growth mechanisms that does not require tax increases, has been
substantially stalled, or can not be efficiently used, at the present time. Other less efficient structures
aze being developed in an attempt to work around this, however, until resolution of the basic issues
described above, either by an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court or by a test case, the
utilization of traditional tax increment financing as a smart grow[h mechanism has been put on hold.
99999\183\565820.4 -5-
Memorandum to Troy Eid
February 2000
The cumulative efFect of the foregoing uncertainty is to drive up the cost of redevelopment
efforts as follows. Private developers who undertake redevelopment projects must borrow money at
higher, taxable rates, invest that borrowed money in a project and then be "reimbursed" the amount
of the investment for qualified costs having a public benefit based on the success of the project. This
financine structure, as compazed to an offering of taY-exempt tax increment bonds, has two very real
results: First, redevelopment projects aze limited to those in which the developer is financially
capable of borrowing money to undertake the entire project, including the qualified public costs.
These projects aze-by their very nature economically uncertain, and the required 100% initial
financing by the developer eliminat--s p: oject participation by smaller or disadvantaged businesses.
Second, the required utilization of taxable, as opposed to tax-exempt borrowing rates, diminishes the
financial capacity for tax increment financing by an estimated 40%. Thus a project, which could
benefit by tas increment financing on a tax-exempt basis of $1.67 million, would only support $1
million on a taxable reimbursement basis.
VII. Resolution through an Interrogatory
Under the Colorado Constitution, Article VI, Section 3, the govemor may request an opinion
from the Colorado Supreme Court "upon important questions upon solemn occasions..." and such
opinions aze published as reported decisions of the court. Such "questions" aze known commonly as
"interrogatories.°
An interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme CouR to dispense witti the issues outlined above
would be as simple as:
"Does an urban renewal authority created under the Colorado Urban Renewal Law
constitute a"district" for purposes of Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado
Constitution?"
Possible answers: No, because it is not a local govemment; or no, because it constitutes an
enterprise.
Therefore, a Supreme Court decision that urban renewal authorities aze not "districts" under
TABOR will confirm the availability of a fundamental financing tool for local govemmenu
attempting to stimulate growth and redevelopment of blighted azeas. If the Supreme Court were to
decide that urban renewal authorities aze subject to TABOR, then at least goveming bodies of local
govemment would be given guidance for public policy decisions and required elections. Failing any
decision, urban renewal authorities, developers wanting to undertake projects in blighted azeas and
99999\183\565820.4 _6_
Memorandum to Troy Eid
February 2000
public officials aze lefr to undertaking projects that aze financially inefficient or wasteful and to
making decisions without sufficient legal and public policy guidance. '
VIII. Conclusion
The bond. counsel community is of the view that urban renewal authorities should not
constitute districts for TABOR purposes. However, the lack of any jildicial precedent plus the
common use of lawsuits to delay and defeat urban renewal projects have prevented bond counsel
from being able to provide the unqualified bond opinions required by the capital markets.
TABOR has been consistently interpreted by the courts as a tax limitation. Since urban
renewal authorities have no taxing powers, they do not appeaz to be the type of entity to which
TABOR was intended to apply. Further, the basic tenet ofTABOR, i.e. requiring elections to raise
taxes, is not diminished by urban renewal authorities or tax increment financing provisions. Neither
the tax rate nor the total amount of taxes levied can be affected by an urban renewal plan. Any
increase in taxes for any reason must still be approved, under TABOR, by a vote of the electors of
the taxing entity. This is true for any increase in property taxes or for any increase in the municipal
sales tax. This, coupled with their lack of police power, suggests that urban renewal authorities aze
not "local govemments" and hence ought not be subject to TABOR.
Further, if an election is needed, it is not cleaz who should vote in such an election. An urban
renewal authority has jurisdiction throughout the municipality. On the other hand, its projects and
finances relate to finite urban renewal azeas, where there may not even be electors available to vote.
In Broomfield, Boulder County asserted that the vote must be held in the totality of the taxing
jurisdictions overlapping the urban renewal azea, which could include school districts, one or more
counties, and even lazge regional water conservancy districts. On its face, this does not make sense
and is wuealistic to administer. Urban renewal authorities do not have authority to call, or cause any
govemmental entity to call an election. It again highlights why urban *enewal authorities do not
constitute the rypical local govenunent. Further, the right to vote is maintained by the taxing
jurisdictions themselves if and when they determine to raise taxes; thus a vote on an urban renewal
plan is not needed to fiuther the objectives of TABOR.
Again, there aze two ways that an entity may not constitute a district: (i) if it is not a local
govemment, or (ii) even if it is a local govemment, it is an enterprise. If an urban renewal authority
is not a local govemment for the reasons expressed above, there need be no further evaluation of the
"enterprise" exemption. However, an urban renewal authority would appear to meet the three
pronged test of "enterprise" under TABOR. It is, like other recognized enterprises under TABOR,
performing a unique and special role designated by statute; it is authorized to issue its own revenue
bonds by statute, and it receives less than 10% of its revenues from state and local grants. Under
99999\1 831565820A . _7_
Memorandum to Troy Eid '
February 2000
Colorado case law, it is made cleaz thaf any incremental revenues to be received by an urban renewal
authority aze to come directly to it, and constitute, once an urban renewal plan is in place, revenues
of the authority and not of the taxing jurisdiction. Hence there is not a"grant" of funds from the
state or local political subdivisions.
The uncertain status of urban renewal audiorities under TABOR is dampening attempts to
revitalize blighted azeas of our cities and towns throughout the State. In addition to the economic
preclusion of small businesses from participation in projects and the financial inefficiencies
mentioned above, the potential fmancial consequences for local govemment aze unacceptable from a
prudent public poiicy perspective. The risk of making a TABOR mistake, with its punitive
provisions (rebate of wrongfully spent amounts with 10% interest) require urban renewal authorities
and their respective city/town governing body to make public policy decisions with unacceptable
potential consequences-or forego needed revitalization efforts. The potential judicial clarification
of the foregoing if the Colorado Supreme Court would accept an inteaogatory on this issue &om the
Executive Branch would bring the much-needed certainty to allow urban renewal efforts to progress
in our State, thereby facilitating "smart growth" initiatives in our State.
99999\1 83\565820.4 _g_