A new bill in the state Legislature could impact a new urban renewal authority the city of Steamboat Springs is considering to fund downtown improvements.

Scott Franz/file

A new bill in the state Legislature could impact a new urban renewal authority the city of Steamboat Springs is considering to fund downtown improvements.

Bill would give Colorado counties more say in how cities form urban renewal authorities

Advertisement

— A debate between Colorado's cities and counties about cities' use of tax increment financing to restore blighted areas has again reached the statehouse, and the result could impact Steamboat Springs.

House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, on Friday introduced a bill that aims to give counties and other taxing entities more say in the process through which cities form urban renewal authorities and capture property and sales tax growth to restore blighted areas.

Cities including Steamboat see these URAs as an important tool to restore run-down or "blighted" areas, while some counties see them as an abused tool that has diverted millions of dollars' worth of property taxes away from counties, school districts and other entities.

“We feel that the tool is unsustainable,” Gini Pingenot, a policy and research supervisor for Colorado Counties Inc., said about the legislation her organization is supporting. “I think this (bill) is a very surgical approach that maintains a municipality's unilateral authority in almost every respect.”

The new legislation specifically would give counties the power to appoint one URA board member.

It also would require municipalities to pledge an equal proportion of their municipal sales tax revenue to the revitalization project, unless a deal is reached on some other amount between a city and taxing entities that are impacted by the project.

The Colorado Municipal League, an organization that lobbies on behalf of cities, opposes the changes.

The legislation comes as the city of Steamboat continues to research the possibility of creating a new URA to help fund downtown improvements.

Some county officials across the state, including here in Routt, are critical of the fact that cities can largely develop URAs and redirect future property tax gains without their approval.

“Anything is better than where it is right now,” Routt County Commissioner Doug Monger said Friday before the bill officially was introduced. “Anything that allows better representation from counties (and other taxing entities) is a better step forward.”

When the city first announced last year that it was looking into creating a new URA downtown, Monger and his fellow commissioners quickly sent city officials a letter saying they tentatively opposed the effort.

In the letter, they cited a number of concerns, including the fact that URAs are formed without an election and that tax revenue from the county and other entities would be diverted to the improvement projects without voter input.

The commissioners also wrote that they thought private development and infrastructure improvements would take place downtown without the formation of a new URA.

Steamboat Springs City Council members said the commissioners' opposition to the plan was premature because it still was in the concept phase.

Cities continue to see URAs as a way to restore previously blighted areas that cities think would not be improved on their own by private development.

It's how this city and stakeholders at the base of Steamboat Ski Area were able to realize a popular promenade and other infrastructure improvements at a base area that once was disjointed.

“This is by far the most effective tool municipalities have to revitalize stressed neighborhoods and retail areas within their city,” Municipal League Legislative Advocate Mark Radtke said. “The only reason you turn to an urban renewal project is the marketplace won't address that on their own.”

He said about 40 cities in the state have URAs.

How the legislation could impact a new URA in Steamboat isn't exactly clear yet because the city still is in the research phase of the project.

City Manager Deb Hinsvark said last week that the city still is working with a consultant to determine the potential of using tax increment financing downtown and what the possible impact on the other taxing entities would be.

After the report is done, the city is expected to start talking with those taxing entities about the next steps.

She said while some other municipalities have rushed to beat the legislation, Steamboat is not altering its timeline.

Monger said he remains skeptical of the plan to form a downtown URA, but he will keep an open mind.

He said he appreciated that city staff met with county staff early in the process to discuss a possible URA.

“We're not going to place judgement on it yet,” he said. “We're taking it one step at a time. We're just trying to get this process a little more fair and equitable so we're not the walking tread on the door mat.”

State Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush, D-Steamboat Springs, said she had not read the bill yet Monday and would not comment until she had.

To reach Scott Franz, call 970-871-4210, email scottfranz@SteamboatToday.com or follow him on Twitter @ScottFranz10

Comments

Scott Wedel 5 months ago

How the legislation could impact a new URA in Steamboat isn't exactly clear yet because the city still is in the research phase of the project.

Well, the legislation would quickly reveal whether city of SB is willing to put city money where their mouths are. Whether they believe their own hype and are prepared to bet city revenues that the URA will result in more sales taxes than would naturally increase.

Overall, the legislation seems to be so obvious fixing a problem of letting cities essentially spend other districts tax revenues that there is no good reason besides city government greed to oppose it. Makes no sense that a city can declare an URA that costs them nothing, but takes millions from local schools, local fire district, local libraries and the county and state.

0

Scott Wedel 5 months ago

Well, there is currently free money for cities forming URAs as those do not affect their tax revenues unless they have a property tax.

SB spent hundreds of thousands on improving a median using tax money otherwise destined for schools, etc. If SB had to put in their own tax revenues then there would have been far more debate whether a nicer median would result in substantial additional retail sales or lodging.

0

Fred Duckels 5 months ago

I think that the free ride is over, it has to be.

0

jerry carlton 5 months ago

The thieves that tax us are fighting over their spoils. The inmates control the asylum.

0

Scott Wedel 5 months ago

Fred, Jerry,

It is far more insidious than normal taxing and spending because current system allows one government to spend the taxes that would normally go to another government.

It would be as if I could appoint myself the PR rep for Duckels Construction without Fred having any say and I get any increases in bulldozer usage for his company. What did I have to do to lay claim to that increase in revenues? Absolutely nothing other than declaring that the increase in revenues were due to me and so therefore those revenues are mine.

Now maybe if I had purchased a newer more efficient bulldozer for Duckels Construction then I could reasonably expect we agreed to share the revenues for that dozer. Which is close to what the state legislature is proposing.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.