HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2000AGENDA
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 18, 2000
7:00 p.m.
Nofice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Urban
Renewal Authority on July 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th
Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. Call The Meeting to Order
2. Roll Call of Members
3. Approval of Minutes - June 20, 2000 and June 29, 2000
4. Public Forum ('I'his is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing
on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.)
5. Old Business
6. New Business
A) Approval to consult with bond counsel, blight study consultant, and plan
preparation consultant
B) Review of Budget - 2000 and 2001
7. Other Matters
8. Adjoumment - August 15, 2000
C:\Barbara\ECODEVOWGENDAS\071800. WPD
MINUTESOF
WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
June 20, 2000
7:00 P.M.
1.
2.
3.
4.
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority meeting was called to order by Chairman
ROACH at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commissioners present: Norm Burkpile
Sandra Collins
Vance Edwards
Jim Goddard
John Hall
Elwyn Kiplinger
Janet Leo
Dick Matthews
Mazgy. Platter
Jerry Roach
Also attending were: Alan White, Planning Director
Martin Orner, Economic Development Specialist
Valerie Adams, City Manager
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Bob Olson, The Chronicle
CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
Rae Jean Behm was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by DICK MATTHEWS and seconded by ELWI'N KIPLINGER to approve
the minutes of the May 16, 2000 EDARC meeting. The motion carried unanimously with
SANDRA COLLINS and JOHN HALL abstaining.
WRURA Minutes Page 1
06/20/00
5. PUBLIC FORUM
There were none present to appear before the Authority.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Supreme Court Opinion - Alan White reported that he received a copy of the letter
which was sent to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Authority asking for an
opinion as to whether tas increment financing is included under the Tabor
limitations. He will advise the Authority when that opinion is handed down.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Northern Portion of Urban Renewal (URA)
1) Market Feasibili ty Study Update - Alan White invited discussion of the
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) which was sent out for the preparation of
the mazket feasibility study for the northern portion of the URA.
Valerie Adams reported that, as a result of sending several RFQ's, two proposals were
received, one of which was not accepted because it did not meet the submittal deadline.
Development Reseazch Partners submitted a proposal which was accepted. She suggested
that the Authority meet with Development Research Partners to discuss their proposal before
making a decision regarding the hiring of a consultant.
In the interest of expediting the process, it was suggested that a decision be made at the time
of the meeting to either hire the consultant or change the scope of the RFQ since the
proposal will have to go before City Council for approval of a budget request as well as
approval of the contract.
It was moved by VANCE EDWARDS and seconded by NORM BURKPILE that a
special meeting of the Urban Renewal Authority be held in the City Council chambers
at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 29, (with an alternate meeting date of July 5) for the
purpose of ineeting with Development Research Partners to discuss their proposal
submitted in response to the Request for Proposal. At this meeting, the Authority will
have the options of accepting the proposal, referring it back to another meeting or
changing the RFQ to send it out again. The motion passed unanimously.
Valerie Adams left the meeting to contact Development Reseazch Partners. She retumed to
the meeting and reported that they were agreeable to meeting on June29.
WRURA Minutes Page 2
06/20/00
2) Economic Impact Model Update - Staff was directed by WRURA at the last
meeting to develop a model for the northern portion of the URA which would
forecast a proposed development's impact to the City.
Alan White reported that, after discussing the use of the model with the Jefferson Economic
Council (JEC), it became apparent that it would be best to wait until the results of the mazket
feasibility analysis are available before proceeding with the development of a model. In the
meantime, staff will be working with JEC to customize the model for Wheat Ridge.
3) Sales and Property Tax Increments - Alan White reviewed the staff report
concerning the property and sales tax for the northern portion of the urban renewal
area.
Alan White addressed the question of what the impact would be to the Urban Renewal
Authority budget if the northem portion of the urban renewal azea was removed for a period
of six months and then put back in. It was his opinion that there would be no impact in
regazd to sales tax revenue. However, the Authority could lose approximately $75,000 in
property tax revenue. He also advised the Authority that removing properties from the
Urban Renewal Authority would require a revision to the Urban Renewal Plan to be
reviewed by Planning Commission and passed by City Council.
It was moved by DICK MATTHEWS and seconded by VANCE EDWARDS to remove
Parcels 2 through 12, known as Wheat Ridge Town Center, from the northern portion
of the Urban Renewal Authority. The motion carried unanimously.
Vance Edwards will initiate the ordinance process with City Council.
B. Area West of Wadsworth - 44th Avenue to Three-Acre Lane - At the request of
the Authority, staff prepared property and sales tax information for the west side of
Wadsworth from 44th Avenue to Three-Acre Lane.
Alan White reviewed the staff report regazding property and sales tax information for the
above-referenced area.
There was discussion regazding the inclusion of the west side of Wadsworth in the Urban
Renewal Authority which would provide for more consistent standazds on both sides of
Wadsworth.
WRliRA Minutes Page 3
06/20/00
It was moved by SANDRA COLLINS and seconded by MARGY PLATTER that
Vance Edwards communicate to City Council that WRURA is interested in including
the southwest corner of Wadsworth from 44th to 38th in the Urban Renewal
Authority. The motion carried unanimously.
Valerie Adams will contact the consultant and ask them to add this area to their proposal.
8. ADJOURNMENT - It was moved by DICK MATTHEWS and seconded by VANCE
EDWARDS to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
JERRY ROACH Ann Lazzeri
Chair Recording Secretary
WRURA Minutes Page 4
06/20/00
MINUTES OF
WI-IEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
June 29, 2000
7:20 Call to Order
Introduction of Jesse Silverstein and Patty Silverstein.
How their firm works and operates in this mazket. Jessie Siiverstein highlights the firms
approach to this project: They include:
- Review of current and potential development perspective,
- Create common public/private goals,
- Estabiish a connection between real estate and community,
- Examine costs and benefits to the city and community,
- Review development potential. This includes the physical chazacteristics and
supply and demand for goods of services,
- Examine business opportunities and quality of real estate/lease rates;
- Evaluate community impacts relating to costs, an d
- Review the market as a whole for the developers.
Mr. Silverstein reviews the project and that his firm will be doing the following:
- An in depth inventory of the properties,
- Review the opportunities of possible reuse of properties.
o Look at future developments and new projects.
o Community expenditure patterns, potential mazkets
o Fiscal impacts on the community.
- Examine the current and future market for development,
- Prepare the business and development opportunity reports.
o Background information.
o Prospective business opportunities.
Mr. Silverstein indicated that he will use the JEC economic development model to
analyze the market and potential businesses. This will also analyze local businesses and
their growth and ability to meet the mazket demands. This program can do a detailed
analysis of cost and benefits to the city in the following areas:
- Economic Growth
- City General Fund Revenues
- City General Fund Costs
- Net economic Benefits vs. Public Costs
- Net Pubiic Revenues vs. Public Costs
The breadth of their analysis includes in depth economic indicators. In addition, Mr.
Silverstein has experience in difficult and contaminated properties.
Mr. Silverstein asked the Commission what the Community envisioned the azea to be.
Ms. Collins indicated it would resemble the same type of development that is next to it.
Entice high caliber rypes of development to match the current development.
Councilman Edwazds indicated that the URA azea is not seen as a positive factor for the
City. It took a long time to do the Safeway development, and time is running out. The
area under URA needs to reflect the quality of the community and the surrounding area.
Mr. Silverstein indicated that Wheat Ridge is a secondary city and it may be hard to
attract high quality investments, but the Safeway development demonstrates that this may
not hold true.
Ms. Collins reviewed the Wadsworth Corridor study and the need for pedestrian and
alternative traffic flow.
Mr. Silverstein asked the question, does the Wheat Ridge residents shop elsewhere. The
Authority indicated that this is the case and it needs to change. Mr. Edwazds indicated
that with the traffic counts for the area, is frustrating because there is a huge potential and
the blight of the azea is a detriment to the community. The timing is right to focus on the
redevelopment opportunities on both sides of Wadsworth.
Mr. Silverstein inquired about the housing stock and demographics. Councilman
Edwazds indicated that commercial redevelopment is important, but the idea of mixed or
blended uses concepts aze not out of the question. The city is wiliing to be innovative, but
again retail will be our focus. Mr. Silverstein indicated that now mixed uses are very
populaz, over the past yeazs, financing for such uses have been hard to find. Now the
financing on this market has changed.
Mr. Mathews indicated that it may not be the vision that drives the development, but the
mazket will drive the uses. Ms. Silverstein inquired about mixed use with office. Mr.
Mathews indicated that the City will entertain mixed use, but would like to focus on sales
tax revenue generator.
Mr. Edwazds inquired about Mr. Silverstein's experience in environmentally challenged
properties. Mr. Silverstein reviewed his experience and indicated that now, developers
aze willing to come in and clean up the properties and then turn it into a profitable
development. In this experience, there are many ways to approach an environmentally
challenged properties. Developers are generally attracted to lazge pazcels of properties.
With smaller properties, it makes more sense for public intervention. There are many
innovative grants and financing program to be tapped. The catch is to add value to the
property so that it works to the advantage of the development.
Councilman Edwazds inquired about Mr. Silverstein's experience working with a U.S.
Post Office. Mr. Silverstein indicated that this would be a good addition to the entire
development. Looking at the impact of the post office includes their employees and
customers that visit the post office.
Councilman Edwards inquired about the JEC modeling and how their information will
interface with that model. Ms. Silverstein indicated that they development the JEC
model and have refined it for mixed use development. As part of their proposal, they
would provide the city with the model to use for this and future developments. This
model will create a snapshot of the local economy and how the development will factor
into the current and local economy.
Mr. Alan White asked about their experience in working in URA. Mr. Silverstein
indicated that several of his projects are within an URA. They have been using some
creative financing aspects to enhance the development. Since they aze the ones that
developed the modeling, they have the experience to interface several creative financing
factors to see how they will affect the development and the city.
Councilman Edwards indicated that the Wadsworth Corridor study is an important factor
in this project. The Authority is looking at the West side of Wadsworth. The Authoritx
would like to look at the opportunities and challenges on the west side of Wadsworth and
how it can be intergraded into the Wadsworth Corridor. Mr. Silverstein and Councilman
Edwazds agreed that the expansion of the area will benefit both the city and current local
businesses. The study will provide information to the businesses/city an informative
mazket analysis that can assist both the city and businesses in redevelopment.
Mr. Burkpile inquires about the firms experience with Lakewood. Mr. Silverstein is
focusing on the redevelopment of Brownfields properties on Colfax, Wadsworth and
Alameda. This includes program development and connecting them with funding and
prospective developers. Mr. Alan White inquires about who will be doing the bulk of the work. Mr. Silverstein
will be the primary contact. Mr. White questions Mr. Silverstein's work load and if this
project will fall on the radar screen and be given the priority that it needs. Mr. Silverstein
indicated that they have time carved out starting in August 1. This would meet the
required time requested in the Proposal. If the City adds to the scope, it is possible that
the time frame may be extended due to unknown factors, but only by a few weeks.
Vice Chair Mathews thanked the Silversteins for their time.
8:20 Chairman Mathews requested a five minute break.
830 Call to order.
Vice Chair Mathews questions what actual scope of work. Councilman Edwards
indicated that it makes sense to look at the west side of Wadsworth from 35°i to 44 `h
Councilman Edwazds makes a motion to change the scope of the project to include the
above, seconded by Mr. Burkpile. Discussion concerning the size of the azea, and that it '
is prudent to include the west side in the scope and planning. There was discussion of
the size of the current area. Unanimously approved by a voice vote.
Ms. Collin indicated that Development Research Partners gave a good presentation by
Development Reseazch Partners. Councilman Edwazds liked the idea if interfacing the
JEC model and their experience in this azea.
Councilman Edwards made a motion, to forwarded to City Council to amend the budget
and approve Development Research Partners to perform the work, seconded by Mazge
Platter.
Item 2
Councilman Edwards, made a motion to nominate Mr. Burkpile to work with the City
Manager to represent the Authority in the recruitment of the new Economic Development
Administrator, seconded by Ms. Collins, unanimously approved by voice vote.
E WHEqT
City of Wheat Ridge
U f~ Planning and Development Department
Po~ orz aoo
Memorandum
TO: URA Members
FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director ~
SUBJECT: 2000 and 2001 Budget
DATE: July 13, 2000
Attached is a budget sheet which shows a revised 2000 budget based on the re-allocations from
the fund balance approved by URA and Council. The transfers were for repairs at the town
Center Park and to provide funds to complete the market feasibility study for the north half of the
URA. There likely may need to be other transfers to professional services to provide funds for
hiring a bond counsel, blight study consultant, and site planning consultant.
Also shown is a budget for 2001. The numbers aze provided for discussion purposes. Significant
increases aze shown for printing, postage, and professional services in anticipation of the new
Economic Development Administrator initiating aggressive mazketing and for consulting
services for continued work on the URA. The Property Tax payment to Safeway Marketplace is
projected at $138,000, with a payment to the Fire District of about $12,000. This payment will
neazly complete the Authority's obligation to the developer.
Also attached are the properiy tax increment calculation which shows the remaining obligation to
the Safeway Mazketplace developer and an update to the sales tas increment calculation.
EiPlanningTcodeNbudget memo.wpd
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
BUDGET 2000 BUDGET 2001
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $439,321 $483,251
Revenues
37-500-00-501
Property Tax Increment
$230,000
$230,000
37-500-00-504
Sales Tax Increment
$100,000
$100,000
37-580-00-581
Interest
10 000
1$ 0.000
TO,TAL REVENUE
? $779,321
$823,251 ;
Personnel
37-120-600-602
Salaries
$0
$0
37-120-600-625
FICA
$0
$0
Total Personnel
$0
$0
Supplies
37-120-650-651
Office Supplies
$300
$500
37-120-650-654
Printing & Photocopying
$500
$3,000
37-120-650-655
Postage
$200
600
Total Supplies
$1,000
$4,100
Services
37-120-700-702
Conference & Meetings
$1,000
$2,000
37-120-700-740
Mileage
$0
$300
37-120-700-750
Professional Services
$51,370
$100,000
37-120-700-758
City Reimbursement
$5,000
$5,000
37-120-700-799
Misc.
200
$200
Totai Services
$57,570
$107,500
Capitai
37-120-800-801 Acquisition & Relocate $0 $0
37-120-800-872 Site Improvements $35,000 $17,500
Loan Payments $0 $0
37-120-800-872 PTI - Marketplace $148,000 150 000
Transfer to Parks 54 500
Total Capital $237,500 $167,500
T,OTALEXPENDITURES ;$296,070-:: : '-~$275100,_
FUND 37
07112
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
00 00 00
0
0
N m
~
~
V
i~Om
O
~
N M
V'
c0 (O W
T
LO M V
V
V N
N
U
~
C
c
.
~
V
~
~
CJ O
L
O
N W W
~
p
M d' (D
V
~ f~: `
OJ
~
~
~
~
~
O
63 Efl
tA
EA
N
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
y
N 0)
uO
M N(D
N
m O N
M W N
N.
W
m
m M m
07
M i~ O
d:
N V c0
M
cD 7Lr)
t()
O
O m V'
h
N V M
CO
V c`J V
V
lf) (O (O
ln
~j
N N M
N
W M
M
~(h N
N
M ln ~
PJ
M
C
0\
N O]
O I- I-
47
(O (O V
I~
N ~ W
I~
O
F
(O c`7 O
O
(O V d'
tn
O N I~
O
O.- O
N
W
N
LX).-- N
ln
tn M W
m 1n ~
CO
N ~ V
M.
-
(7)
N
M
O N
V
Iz
c0 N ~
M
~ t0 W
m
V'
T
V3 V3
V3
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
ffl ER
fR
V3 6
9
1
~
~
0 0 0
0
\
0 0 0
\0
0 0 \ \°0
0
\
\
N
N0)
LL~
tn 0)
O
N(O tn
0 0 0
h CO N
0
f~
0
M
y
N MI~
W
0) LO 'r
O
LO~--0
(O
00)N
O
O
~
~~oi
'
coLO M
Lri
nro
N rioi
co
<1' (O P
)
1A
M N
N
N N
N
cD
N
(7
U
.
C
a
~mr-
co
vrno
m
innm,
-
comv
m
m
n W N
(O
7
~
N
~
OJ ~ 47
M
h(O
r
C
O d
~
O
0)
W
N
ln V'
N
M I- ,
N
0 Nd
W
L1 m V'
OJ
(6
N N
1
cD
63
M
EA EA
N
ER N V3
M
CO
pp
3 fA Efl
6
63
EA 03
63
H)
EA
Efl
V-}
01
Efl
~
~
0 0 0
o 0 0
0
0
0 0 180 0 0
00
0 0 0 0 0 0
00
0 0 0 0 0
00
0
0
~
(D 1-
(`7
~ M N
~
~
~
~
I~ O'V;
OJ
W W
M
N W W
M
N CO
N
M
(
O
LLI
N
O W LLi
<`7 N M
(O
M
N V N
4)
V N I~
oJ
OJ N CO
I~
cy r N
N
r N
M ~
M
N
C
W
0
~
U
M(D V)
V
cO V(O
(D
(O ln N
M
tn N M
O
M
Z
F„
O V 4O
"
O
M 00 (O
W
W M W
't 0)
`
N
c
) 00)
M
c0 N N
tq c0 O
M
O N V
V
N
j
n
O ~ N
1q
Ln h O
M
. c0 O a0
n
O V OJ
P7
(D
0
1
0
~ V)
~
~
M
~ ~
~
~
~
~
V.
i
63
fA V~
64
EA
6
4
V3
~
~
W
0
0
~
o
d
ornm
~
rnrnLn
~
vmm
o
corco
rn
o
a O
~
~
I- 0) ln
N
r - W
-
c`~j V M
N
N N~
(~D
M
vi r co
o
i: oi v
co co Lri
w
co 0
oi
m
W~
m
v co co
N
c~ v v
c~
v v v
m
v vLn
m
04
2 c
~
oo
rn
e3 E» Fsa
1
v~ e3 E»
~
64 v-r ~
~
v3 E» e3
6-
in
61~
3 ~
r
l
~
LIJ
~
~
~
w
~
~
x
¢
¢
>
~
¢
a
>
~
d' ~
C7
~ W
Cr
} 7~
C1
O W W
0
Q
~
Qz
>>w
~
vo
o
2
a
z
w
F
Q
~
N
~ Q( n
M
O Z 0
~
~
WHEAT RIDGE TOWN CENTER PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT CALCULATION
APRIL 26, 2000
Schedule Number
1994 1997
109826 421452
109827 421453
109828 421454
109829 421455
109830 421456
155202 421457
155203 421458
155204
907141
910136
913986
912777
914058
914069
916153
917476
957709
961461
961478
961493
961503
961521
963838
963898
965971
TOTAL
1994 Base
Value Tax Paid
1999
Value Tax Paid
$477,660
.00
$37,517
.00
$169,070
.00
$14,178.
54
$121,890
.00
$10,949
.00
$284,030
.00
$23,819.
32
$123,300
.00
$11,076
.00
$213,240.
00
$17,882.
73
$97,270
.00
$8,737
.00
$311,580.
00
$26,129.
72
$83,560
.00
$7,513
.00
$904,220.
00
$75,829.
69
$121,490
.00
$10,913
.00
$351,310.
00
$29,461.
56
$295,280
.00
$26,524
.00
$155,500.
00
$13,040.
54
$6,720
.00
$604
.00
$170
.00
$15
.00
$25,830.
00
$2,166.
16
$1,680
.00
$151
.00
$27,520.
00
$2,307.
88
$10,740
.00
$965
.00
$68,170.
00
$5,716.
87
$0
.00
$0
.00
$24,590.
00
$2,062.
17
$70
.00
$6
.00
$421,110.
00
$35,315.
13
$4,000
.00
$359
.00
$11,370.
00
$953.
51
$2,460
.00
$221
.00
$2,370.
00
$198.
75
$3,590
.00
$322
.00
$0.
00
$0.
00
$2,380
.00
$214
.00
$38,160.
00
$3,200.
17
$4,660
.00
$419
.00
$23,750.
00
$1,991.
72
$478
.00
$42
.00
$82,240.
00
$6,896.
81
$21,060
.00
$1,892
.00
$1,670.
00
$140.
05
$6,150
.00
$552
.00
$0.
00
$0.
00
$470
.00
$42.
00
$26,710.
00
$2,239.
95
$6,790
.00
$609
.00
$1,850.
00
$155.
14
$3,750.
00
$314.
48
$0.
00
$0.
00
1 330.
00
111.
54
$6,660
.00
$598.
00
$21,570
.00
$1,938.
00
$15,390
.00
$1,382.
00
$390
.00
$35.
00
$1,380
.00
$124.
00
$950
.00
$85.
00
1 630
.00
146.
00
$1,439,838.00 $123,950.00
TAXINCREMENT
LESS TREASURER'S FEES (3%)
AMOUNT TO WHEAT RIDGE MARKETPLACE
PAYMENTS July 31, 1997
August 31, 1997
January 31, 1998 amount payable for 1996
August 5, 1998
December 16, 1998
April 19, 1999 pd 4199
July 22, 1999 pd 7/99
April 26, 2000
July 10, 2000
TOTAL PAID TO DATE
TOTAL OBLIGATION
$80,000.00
$30,580.00
$53,978.56
$114,021.44
$37,747.16
$50,000.00
$84,032.81
$50,000.00
$85.957.56
AMOUNT OUTSTANDING
AMOUNT OUTSTANDING FOR 2000
REMAINING OBLIGATION AFTER 2000 PAYMENTS
$3,149,370.00 $264,112.43
$140,162.43
$4,204.87
$135,957.56
$750,000.00
963,'~ ~`683~4~
w.
rs
.
;$163,68,2.47 r,