Longmont Urban Renewal Authority (LURA) - August 2026

All righty. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the August 18th, 2026 Urban Renewal Authority Board meeting. Thank you all for being here. Um, we're going to go ahead and jump in uh with a brief call to order, which I just did. So, we're really going to go to roll call. Just like to make it sound dramatic. Um, so, uh, let's I will kick things off. Uh, Chair Popkin, >> Commissioner Calbert, >> Commissioner, >> Commissioner Chris, Commissioner, >> Commissioner Parker, >> Tim Hole, Assistant City Attorney, >> Commissioner Bull, >> Commissioner Evalgo, Fairing. >> Oh, Harold, city manager. >> Terresa Malloy, treasurer. >> So, Jenny, executive director. And we have um Commissioner Marsing and McGill absent and expected. And do we have Commissioner Lo on >> yet? >> Don't um email her, Jen. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um >> we're she had a um as she mentioned previously, she had an open house, so maybe that's really um great. Thank you. So that means we have uh eight members present today just for Marc members present today just when we're taking the votes that'll be the our denominator unless joins us. Um we'll move on to agenda item three. Public invited to be heard. Are there any public comments for the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority? >> Yes, Lance. >> Of course. >> Are we adhering to the three minutes? >> All right. Today is National Fajita Day, National Ice Cream Pie Day, National Mail Order. Um, oh, mail order catalog day. [laughter] I wonder why. Um, Merryweather Lewis, Merryweather Lewis, Lewis Clark, it was his birthday today. Benjamin Harris, the 23rd president, Robert Redford, Patrick Sees, and Al Rooker. A lot of birthdays today. Um, 1963 was the first day that uh black graduated from University of Mississippi. 1963. That's all. >> Thank you very much. Are there any other public comments? Seeing none, we will go on to agenda item four, approval of the minutes. This is the July 21st, 2026 Luro meeting. Are there any uh amendments to the minutes? >> I would just note that there's one reselling of the chair's name, so we will take that. >> Thank you. >> I took that person, so I appreciate it. >> Any other corrections to the minutes or questions of >> none, but I was was not in attendance, so I'll abstain. >> No. Okay. Thank you. All righty. Uh, with are there any motions regarding the minutes? >> So, >> motion to >> second >> approve. >> Thank you. And a second. So, that's a motion to approve from Commissioner Koffer with a second from McCoy. Uh, Commissioner McCoy. Um, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> And I believe Commissioner Chris, you want to abstain? Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Uh, so approve. That passes 7 to 0 to one. Great. Uh, with that, we'll move on to agenda item five, report from the executive director, Jen Uten. Are there any >> I don't have anything really to to add to this. Um there is other than there is one IGA agreement um from Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District that we do have back from them that is not included in the agenda tonight because we wanted to focus only on the first and main items because it was a special meeting and really for that purpose. Um so on your next agenda you'll see that one and um we just made the determination to make this because we're doing two meetings some of you this evening back toback uh that we would have this be just for the sole purpose of the special meeting agenda topics. >> Great. Thank you. Um before we move on to agenda item six for regular business where we have multiple tax and current revenue agreements, I just wanted to make a brief PSA um for any public really that's uh here or watching. Um, when we're talking about tax increment financing revenue agreements, we are not talking about new taxes. We are not talking about new tax rates. We are talking about the existing properties and the existing rate structure that applies to those and improving the valuation of those properties. Um, we're not talking about um actually increasing the rate of taxes. We're taxing other people to pay for these improvements. Just wanted to make that clear. I've heard some uh confusion in the public over the last couple months on that and just figured I would start that off before we dive into these agreements. Great. Um with that, we'll move to item uh 6A, approval of the tax increment revenue agreement for first and main urban renewal plan, city of Longmont amendment. Uh that's resolution uh 20268. I will pass over to executive director Jennu. >> Just I know that we have gone through this several times. We just did want to give the background related just for anybody who is here for the first time. Um, and here we go. >> Is that Commissioner? >> She's the only one invited. [laughter] >> I certainly hope that's true. >> Um, so she's here. Um, it looks like so um and hopefully she can hear us. Commissioner, can you hear us? >> I Yes. >> Okay. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um, we are just starting agenda item 6A for what it's worth. Uh, and just for the record, >> Commissioner Lman joined at 7:07 p.m. >> Great. Yeah. So um first and main transit center obviously what we have been working toward is this um getting all of these agreements ready and um executed so that we can move forward with taking the urban renewal plan consideration of the condition survey and bike which is the bike study um to city council for the um consideration and it's for August 25th but and the second reading for the public hearing um would be September 8th and so some of the items that are on your agenda tonight look a little differently than they might otherwise if we weren't chasing that that deadline. And part of the reason we're chasing that deadline is because the transit center itself has a timeline associated with that. And we are um working with the city to make sure that we um help everybody achieve that that deadline to start the project this fall. um that will allow us then to um stay on that timeline that we have on the city side um with RTD to deliver the transit center. So um just wanted to give some background there. Um this is a slide you've seen previously. Um kind of talking through the steps of what it is to get to that enroll plan. Um so where we are now is the tiff allocation IGA is negotiated with each taxing entity. The reason why that's not checked, there's one item tonight where we're talking about deal points, but not necessarily the IGA itself. So when we get there, we'll go through that. Um, planning commission did review the plan. So the last time we met, that was getting ready to happen the next day. So the planning commission did review the plan and determine that it is in um accordance with and in service to the comprehensive plan. So envision on that and we have um given that 30-day notice for the public hearing which the public hearing just for clarity again is September 8th. We noticed for both um both the first reading of the ordinance related to the adoption of the plan and also the um public hearing. Um so it was in advance of it was 30 days in advance actually the first reading but we we notice for both of them it have to be at least 30 days in advance. Um, and so there's some information that's in the packet that's related to that. I will note that in maybe one or two cases, we said 2006. We really did mean 2026. Um, in terms of the noticing, we were not, you know, that preient. Um, and so that was just a typo. Um, in terms of this, we are at the step for Laura approving IGAS. Um, that allows us to to proceed with that plan. this timeline um like I say it's kind of stacked on top of each other and that's really so that we can deliver um on the city side the the transit center on time which requires us to start on time which requires us to have this mechanism in place so that we can have that be part of the capital stack for the transit center. >> I have a question. >> Is the transit center on the same timeline as FRCC? >> So they're on slightly different timelines. The transit center is expected to start um it's actually in some ways starting now. There's some dirt work that will be happening in September and then it will go to full construction um in October. And so we we will be doing that. And then we are still working on the on the city side when I say we I mean the city is still working on the development agreement with um MVIG that's associated with that project and it will start in the spring and it's contingent on essentially all of those agreements getting sorted. So it will be a little bit behind the transit center but not a lot. >> Thank you. Not certain why that didn't work. Um, but here's the first and main urban renewal plan area. As I think you all know, this is really um in service to transit oriented development or transit friendly planning that we've been working on for a long time in this area. So, um it is on both sides of Main Street, essentially south of First Avenue and for the most part north of Boston. The two exceptions are these um two parcels that are um below Boston that have IDA addresses. Um and so that is relevant to the first item on your agenda this evening. Um here's the the Longmont Station area plan that we're they're working on. So, we can go back to that. I just like to have this just in case we need to have a conversation about it. Um the first and main transit center itself as you know is a a fivetory parking garage um with about 700 parking stalls will um which has the bus station at the ground level of the parking structure um includes adjacent a new extension of coffin district between 1 Avenue and Boston Avenue. The overall project um cost for all that including coffin is $70 million. The F FRCC urban innovation campus is also part of this. Um and the current phase of that project includes developing schematic design and construction drawings um and working through the entitlements for the academic campus. Uh and also this um private development piece. So as I mentioned before, we're on a um we have a a second phase of a development agreement that's allowing that work to proceed. the city council will meet um a third development agreement and associated IGA with Front Range Community College to move it forward. Um and that is expected to happen in the spring. >> When are we expecting like we've talked about the county enclave that's right there just east of the Tele property? Is that coming into play in this at all or is that going to be [snorts] happening on the private sector side? >> We have um we need to um annex it. We've been developing those annexation maps. Um we have um talked to the county, the county would like I guess the on the city side to annex this and so that's part of what we're intending to do here. Um but I don't exactly have a timeline for the annexation of that personal yet. We're really working on trying to get all these agreements sorted and done and then um but in the background we have been working on the annexation map and at some point the city council will see this item um come through um but it's not yet. >> So the answer is um in terms of the front range project that's not included in how we're looking at the financing. Uh that is something that on the private side they'll have to consider. >> And I'm just going to back up really quickly. It's not included in the urban renewal plan area. Um we cannot include it in the plan area because it it's not in the corporate boundary of the city. Um and we don't currently have any plans to do any amendment that would take it into the urban rural area. Um, so we would annex it on the city side into the city but not into the urban area. Thanks for catching the second part of that question. Um, so resolution um 20268 is the amendment of the agreement that is already in place with the um with the city of Warmmont for the property tax that's associated with this area. The amendment here is really simply to extend the area to pick up those two parcels on IDA. Um when we first were talking about this and we brought it to city council um it did not include those two areas and so we went ahead executed the IGA itself. Um as it was um as the area was envisioned without those two properties and then this is the amendment to add those properties in. There has been a condition survey that takes that into account. We didn't notice anything that was associated with it. Um let obviously the city of homeland know that and we're um moving forward all of the taxing entities their IGAs have from the very beginning [clears throat] included um those two parcels. So this is just an amendment that would add those two. Um so again this is what the area looked like um when it came through from the first part of the IG. Um and then this is the um the actual legal area that also includes it includes part of Boston the rightway Boston includes those two parcels and part of the Kimark um right away as well and includes those two parcels. And so that is what this um particular amendment does. We will need to also bring this to city council. So whereas most of the agreements that you see the other entity has approved it and then you're approving it to execute it. In this case because of the timeline um it's coming to [clears throat] the urban renewal authority first and um subsequently to that we will take it to uh city council. it would um be part of the consideration on September 8th as so it'll be um with a number of other items that are being considered on September and with that I'm open to any questions you have. Okay. Um, chair. Um, so, um, we exchanged some emails. My first question was, if we were going to use sales tax, were the commercial because there's going to be commercial activity, will there be sales tax also as part of part of the tip? >> So, the IGA itself with all of the um taxing entities is for property tax only. Um we do the urban renewal authority does have one tax in agreement financing area that is at twin feet small that included sales tax. Um but we have not in any other um IG or any other plans that have been enacted since then have considered the sales tax component. It's modeled in the impact report that you have >> which I think is a little confusing. Say that again. There's one section that that has is considered. >> So for the Twin Peaks Mall, and I might turn this over to Teresa who can probably give more insight than I would be able to, but on the Twin Peaks Mall in the first tax increment financing area for the original redevelopment, um, it did include sales tax, >> which that is not associated with this. >> It is not. Okay. So, just to just to be clear, um, but it is including property tax and I I'm looking at the IGA with um Boulder County and they have accepted their um we have pulled out their mental health tax um as part of what they would allow to contribute. And we have um ongoing on the ballot an initiative to give a 30% cut of property tax to public safety. And so at this time I would like us to consider just opting out of the public safety portion of the property tax in this um amendment so that we don't ask for property tax for public safety and then accept this in the in the um tip area but actually give them property tax for that. It's actually let's see >> and if I may from that >> the the original IGA with the city of Longmont does um essentially exclude this. So I can um bring this up but uh essentially there is already a restriction because the IG says that um for property taxes where the voters have not yet if the voters add a new property tax then it would be excluded from the tax increment. I think we will probably receive it for the and when I say we it another item on your agenda um makes that a little bit more complicated. So in this case it will come to um the urb it would come to the urban renewal authority and the urban renewal authority would need to remmit it back to the city of um because it is the future um voted upon um is excluded within this period. So um if the voters were to approve the public safety tax this fall it would not be part of this. That's why I'm bringing it up now because I would like to accept it now. I by accept it I mean allow any future for public safety only to be included. >> It's written that way. So it won't be included in the existing >> she's saying she wants it. >> I was misunderstanding amended to say that it will >> but for public safety not necessarily for >> Can you be more specific? What what is it in this case? and it will receive what? >> So, uh what I'm saying is that >> any any property tax owed to public safety either existing today or in future would not go into the tip publicly given back to public safety. >> Gotcha. And so just to clarify for everyone, so when we collect property and sales tax, it goes into multiple different funds, sorry, and when when I said when the city of Longmont collects sales and property tax, it goes into multiple different funds, of which one of them is a public safety fund. Um, as the urban renewal authority, we don't make those distinctions to the same degree. We would be negotiating specifically with individual tax entities if there were specific provisions there. So are do we need to carve that out on this side? >> No. No. So the the way the ballot initiative is crafted >> with a 30% sales tax or property tax >> the IG >> and here it's stated in mills. So it would be good to know what the mills would be to be specific. The IGA actually does not allow the urban renewal authority to capture any of that public safety property tax. That's already done. >> So that's >> this is an amendment to that IGA. Isn't that correct? The original IGA says this. Um, if the city eligible electors approve a new or increased meal levy for any lawful purpose, any revenue derived from the future mill levy shall not be considered part of the city property tax increment revenues. Rather, upon approval of the eligible electors of the city of the future mill levy, cities shall provide notification of the same to the authority from the date of such notice until the duration has expired. The authority shall annually deduct from the property tax increment revenue it receives any revenues attributable to the future mill as applicable and she'll remit such revenues to the city. So, we will get we will receive those dollars and if it's a million dollars and the urban renew >> me the urban renewal authority well you we will receive those dollars because they're going to from the county they're going to send that to us as one lump sum and then um we would then on the city side or the urban renewal side we would do that math and then remit that say it was a million dollars remit that million dollars back to the city so and it will go to the purposes for which it was intended. So, um if that's public safety tax or some other future dedicated tax, it would go to >> just like we will have to do for the county's portion of the um mental health as well as the school district mill levy override portion. The URRA will receive those monies and remitt it back to the school district. So, you're saying that that is already >> being withheld from this, but did you just tell me that if that passes after this that it would go to the authority and not back to public safety? >> We receive it because the county has to remit it to us and then we would remit it back to the city. And for all of the agreements where we are not getting 100% of [clears throat] the tax in agreement financing over the base, we will have to do that math and give back the portion that we have agreed to give back to the taxing entities. So for all of the agreements where we're not getting 100% we the urban renewal authority will in the special fund receive that and then we will take those dollars and give them back to the taxing entity. Um, so if it's we've got 85% of the the tax that are coming from Boulder County, we will then give the 15% back to um to Boulder County. So Boulder County is going to send it to us and we're going to send it back. >> Is the written that we will be remitting that extra 30% back to public safety funding? >> Yes. >> Because we don't keep any increases that are passed after increases. So the urban renewal authority only keeps what we agree to at the present time based on what the various tax rates are or tax agreements are. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So then what about sales tax? We're not taking any sales tax from the commercial. Is the authority taking all the sales tax from any commercial? >> We won't receive any of the sales tax because it doesn't work the exact same way. Um, so the city isn't going to send us the sales tax and then we would admit it back in this case for both. >> You just won't see it. >> We just won't ever see it. >> It'll just be filed. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Do you need a motion? >> Do we have any idea what those mills would be? Just one just so we know. >> We have 13.42 is the 100% that the city will be um committing for the IGA. Do we have any idea? Mills are complicated. So if you don't know yet Teresa totally understand what the mills would be for the public safety >> 2.44 44 I think is what we have in the the 30%. >> She's all by the way. >> Thank you. If there I'm going to suggest if there are future questions on the public safety sale the sales property tax proposal to ballot that is a city council kind of related matter at this point and not everyone has the same information. >> Commissioners just wanted to note that there. >> Yes. I'd like to move then uh option one approve the first amendment to the H a tax improvement revenue agreement concerning the first and main. >> Thank you. We have a motion to approve item 6A by Commissioner McCoy and a second from Commissioner Kuffer. Um is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Uh all those in favor. Hi, >> Commissioner Lojman, are you in favor of the item 6A? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, and any opposed? >> Seeing none. So, approved. That's 9 to zero. Approval. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 6B, the approval of the tax increment revenue agreement first domain urban renewal plan with Boulder County. That's resolution 202609. >> Thank you. Um so the Boulder County U board of commissioners approved this this morning. Um and so again, we're um on that quick timeline, so we really appreciate the county for doing that. Um >> this one also has some nuances. So, I'll just walk through those. Um, what's modeled in the impact report for Boulder County property tax um is essentially an estimated property tax as an annual average of just over um $400,000. And um I will note that there are also modeled amounts for sales tax from Boulder County and this agreement does not include that. It is for property tax only. Um so the TIFF forecast that estimate would be um about $10.4 million in property tax increment over the plan term um which is 25 years. Um the county commissioners had asked for um those um those mills that are dedicated for um development disabilities fund for the health and human services fund and the human services uh safety net. all of those mills to be excluded from this agreement. Um essentially meaning that um the number of mills that we will we will receive would be the full amount that's modeled in the plan but that we would remit back to the county um that amount which is equal to these mill rates for the dedicated health and human services piece. This agreement does contemplate that [clears throat] it is a bit um cumbersome for Boulder County to remmit something to us to remmit it back to Boulder County. Um it is something that is contemplated in the agreement that could change in the future. So we anticipate that in the first years they will have to give us those dollars and then we will have to remit them back. However, if the county can find a way for them not have to send us those dollars and then us send them back that this agreement does contemplate that. Um and so uh so that's one component of this. The the other um piece that's um different in this agreement that's different from the other agreement that you've seen is that there is a a more specific definition of what those dollars can go towards. So improvements in this case are really intended to be public improvements. Um so it is a narrowing of what the possible um use of these dollars could be and the county wanted to see that really be public improvements. So we did um through some back and forth um tried to define to the best of our ability what are those all of those components. So, it's um I won't read you the whole definition here, but it does include environmental remediation um site work. Um sorry that this grabbed the the this piece right here. This this is probably from the agreement, so I apologize. Um but it is essentially construction of public buildings including transit centers um and associated um horizontal infrastructure. So um essentially that is um all the public improvements that we are doing. So the transit center um burnt range community college those public improvements streets um drainage systems those kinds of things are the things that these dollars can go toward. So, we will have to when the urban renewal authority has an agreement with the city for use of those dollars that would be um pledged toward the um the debt. Um we will have to be specific with these dollars that they can only be used for u for public improvement. Um and with that, I'm open to any questions that you might have. >> Thank you, Jen. Questions? questions. Commissioner Loachman, >> any virtual question for me? Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for the county for moving so quickly. >> Motion to move this forward. >> We have a a motion to uh approve agenda item 6B. That's resolution uh Laura 20269. Um from Commissioner McCoy, >> second from Commissioner Chris. Um, is there any discussion on the motion here in a robust chorus of >> Sorry, who is the first? >> Uh, McCoy. >> That's Thank you. Thank you. >> Seeing a robust chorus of no one. >> Um, all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Commissioner Loachman confirming you an I. >> I. >> Thank you very much. Um, that also is approved 9 to zero. slightly delayed. Uh, great. Moving on to agenda item 6C, that is an approval of a tax increment revenue agreement first main urban renewal plan with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, uh, Lure Resolution 202610. >> Back to you, Jen. >> This agreement looks also a little bit different. So, each of these obviously we've negotiated, so they're all a little bit different. Um in this case um we um a number of us including um Mr. Ratmaker, Dale Ratimaker and Katie Haltus and I went to um Northern Water made a presentation about the transit center and Front Range Community College and there was um a lot of you know you know appreciation for the project itself. Um however um Northern Water chose to not participate in this uh agreement. Um so on June 11th following discussion it was the general consensus of that board to direct our staff to pursue a financially neutral pass through agreement with Walmart and return that matter to the board. Um so the Northern Water Board on August 13th approved the attached IGA which is essentially um a pastor agreement. So again, the urban renewal authority will receive those dollars um and then we would then remit them back to Northern Water for their milk. Can you >> explain why we need a an agreement with this if we were sending no back? So this is the way that Northern Water handles all of these and I think it is um good clarity for us in the future that they're um you know so this is essentially um putting into the urban learn plan that there is zero dollars um that are that are going to be used for this purpose. And so, um, this agreement essentially just, um, puts that in writing and then if it is included with renewal plan, that will be considered by city. >> And because we would receive it, you need to get those dollars back. >> Yeah, sure. Thanks. Um, does that change any of the numbers of any of the math that we're expecting or if so in significant? >> I mean, I think every dollar to this project is significant. I I won't say that it's not significant. Um we did um but we have included that within the the modeling that we've done for the capital stack for this for the transit center um project in particular and we will you know we will understand what those dollars are moving forward as we figure out the front range capital stack. So, um I won't say that they're not significant, but we understand that um you know, the Northern Water Board really does I mean they were very appreciative of of what this these projects are and what they asked lots of questions about and how this ties to the work that's happened on the resiliency rain and the work in the the um flood plane. and they were um I can't tell you how appreciative, but they really feel like because they are this large district, a very large district, and they get lots of these urban renewal plan asks that if they were to do it for us that they would have to do it for themselves. And so, um I there was a moment where I thought that there was a real chance that we might um we might pursue them and it didn't happen. >> So, it's a precedent. addition >> to answer your questions. Yes. Every dollar changes it. We're on the back side adjusting the capital stack and the financing to make sure that it pencils financially. [clears throat] >> Okay. Um I also just want to note uh there were a couple there were three instances where Northern was spelled without an R. >> Oh yes, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. So I presume we'll just uh >> we'll fix it in the resolution. So, if you want to just say that the resol it's the resolution itself. It isn't the IG >> um any other component. It's just the resolution. >> Unless do we get to keep the tip revenue if we misspell it? >> I don't think so. [laughter] >> Um motion that we accept resolution Laura 2026-10. >> Thank you. Uh a motion that second over there. Motion to approve uh item 6C, lure resolution 202610 by Commissioner Kuffer with a second from McCoy. Um is there any discussion on the motion? >> I wouldn't say discussion, but I do have a piece of information that you might find interesting right at this juncture. >> Sure. >> And that is um the water board will be coming to um city council again, but in relationship to uh St. Brain Water Conservancy District who will be buying some water from us. And what staff presented and I'm not saying this relates to um Northern Colorado Water District, but what staff present presented to us is that they have had other asks. So, and that in those cases, these districts are having to pay money for water and so that affects their fund balance too. >> Lease leasing water. Correct. >> They are leasing. They will be paying it back. >> Yeah. Not buying it. >> Not buying it. Buying it. [laughter] >> Buying it temporarily. Paying it back. Got it. Okay. Um, see no other discussion. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? >> Mr. Lochman, were you in favor? >> Hi. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, with a vote of 9 to zero, that passes unanimously. Uh, we'll move now to item 6D, approval of the tax increment revenue agreement first in Maine urban renewal plan St. V with the St. Barry Valley School District. That's lure resolution 202611. Back to you, John. >> Uh, so we brought this to um the St. Mar Valley School District um at their meeting last week um on the 12th. Um so this agreement again looks a little bit differently. Um so there are a number of mills that are collected collected by the school district. Um this agreement is for those 27 mills. Um and we would be in this case we're remitting back that portion of [clears throat] of the school district increment that is um is beyond that. So it's for the mill levy override and for the um the the abatement. Um and so uh this is um it is for just the the base amount that is backed by the state and then it also sets a cap. So um the agreement caps the total amount um at $16.6 million. it is more than is modeled to be part of the um the their base 27 mills. Um but this is in with the idea that um there could be growth in property tax beyond um what is the estimated amount. Um and so this gives um [clears throat] a little bit of room um for those dollars that are backfilled and then over that cap um we would go back to the school district. So, we will remit um the the millennial override and the abatement piece. Um and then if we were to reach this $16.6 million over the 25 year life, then we would remit back to the school district anything over that. >> To clarify, that's a similar like mechanism to what we did with the um retreat uh uh built to the Peaks, right? Where it was a that was with the city though it was a cap. So, it was a 15.6 million cap there, right, for that. So >> where anything over that goes back to the tax important. >> So we have both a cap in the agreement with the developer um for the heines development [clears throat] for the Twin Peaks area 2. We also have a cap of the school district that is um so very similarly it is a a little bit over what is the modeled amount that's in the incre in the impact report. um again to just give a little bit of room in case that we see a lot of growth in property taxes beyond what's modeled. So um it's very similar to what we've done. >> And so then truly anything above that cap and anything beyond the 25 years goes to tax. >> Yep. Exactly. >> Anything else? >> That's it. Thank you. Um questions or discussion on this item? See no resounding course of none. Are there any motions to move? I have a motion to approve item 6D from Commissioner McCoy. Second from Commissioner Kover. Thank you. Um any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion. Um all those in favor >> I >> I. All those opposed. Commissioner Lchman, your vote. >> I Thank you. >> Thank you. Um that passes unanimously 9 to zero as well. Great. Um thank you, Jen. Um on to item 6 C, the downtown development authority deal points. Back to you, Jen. >> Yeah. So, um, again, this looks a little bit differently, um, than your other agreements, and partly because we don't yet have an IGA to present to you. Um, it's still something that we're working through. Um, the u the downtown development authority met on the 10th. Um, and we um were we received this information about what those deal points are. We do have a draft of the IG. are still looking through that. But again, based on the timeline, wanted to present this um to the urban renewal authority, see if there is um agreement with these um these deal points in principle. So what would happen is we would um finalize that IGA. The downtown development authority would vote on it at their meeting, which is on August 26th, and then the agreement would come back to the urban renewal authority. on on your next meeting which is September 15th. Um and we would plug into the urban renewal plan as we're you know putting in 100% for the city of Longmont and um you know the Boulder County less those um property tax mills that are specifically for health and human services. We will have a listing of those that's going to go with the agreement that happens um that's going to go to city council next week. Um so wanted to get these deal points in [clears throat] front of you. It um would be considered both on first and second reading with that and we would have to amend it if it doesn't um ultimately look like this. So uh and when I say it, I mean the urban renewal plan would have to be amended um through a minor amendment um if it doesn't look like this. So essentially I'm going to go one more slide and then come back to this. So there is an overlap of the boundaries. Um the Barney colored piece is uh the urban renewal authority and um it's also outlined. Um this is illustrative. It is obviously not the legal description um for this area. So it includes some um rights of white. The blue hatched area is >> fun term. >> Yeah. Blue hatched area. It's a raspberry color. um hatched area is uh is the downtown development authority. So there are five properties where there's an overlap and so the Boulder County Assessor's Office can really only remit to one of these tax increment financing districts and the Downtown Development Authority was established many years ago and so they are first in line. And so what this agreement does is essentially sets up a revenue sharing agreement with um the the downtown development authority. So, as I've been describing where the urban renewal was going to take the dollars and then remit to back to those taxing entities, it's actually a little bit more complicated than that because in these five for these five parcels, um the downtown development authority is going to get that increment and they're going to get it first and then this agreement would with them when we have this IGA would have the DBA share a portion of that tax improvement financing with the urban renewal authority for this [clears throat] um this work. So it's a a tax sharing agreement um the deal points of which look like the DDA receives that increment for the parcels where there's an overlap and they will annually remit 100% of the negotiated increment with the taxing entities. So all those taxing entities that we just did those agreements with. So Northern Water, the city, um the school district, um St. left hand and the county. Um we would be receiving those tax increment dollars where we negotiated the agreement as through the DDA as a pass through to the urban removal authority. Um so this will be subject to annual appropriation. So the downtown development authority will have to [laughter] annually consider this. Um and the calculation that we put together so Andy Arnold who you met at your meeting earlier this year did the modeling for this. Um basically what we have negotiated is 61% of the property tax increment that's being that's available out there. Um the DDA they're agree it's just for there for 70%. Um, so essentially they're proposing that they would remit to us the 61% of the property tax increment that's available um for all those overlapping parcels and that um we would annually talk about the 9% difference and you know essentially in the first years that that would go to the debt service for the transit center. Um but that the idea is that annually we're going to talk about whether there's a mutually beneficial project. So maybe it's now a way project or it is a um some other project that meets the criteria. Um and so we would talk about it annually basically. Um >> but it's only on that 9%. >> It's only on the 9%. So they would annually remit the 61% of what we've already >> with the five mills. >> They would keep their five mills. >> They would keep the five mill. >> So they're going to keep their pro their property tax. >> Okay. >> Because they have um you know they have obligations to to to do the work that the DBA has set out to do. And so that those mills would help the DBA continue to do that work. Um and then they would remit to us the agreement for the those other areas that we've um we've essentially are already negotiated. Um one piece where we're still talking about is whether what happens if the urban renewal authority and the DDA overlap increases. Um and so um that is one thing that we're still working out. Um, and I think if we've already negotiated these agreements to be 61%. So, you know, at a minimum if there's overlap and if if one of these areas increases, then um [clears throat] then we would only be able to get 61% of the increment. And so they, you know, the proposal would be essentially that that would remain through those parcels. Um I will say that one other complicating factor and I didn't I didn't put this map um in here is that so this is the transit center and this piece right here. So this is where Kaufman will go >> and this parcel right here these two parcels and a little slower of these three parcels would be the mixed juice component. So it will be a single lot. Um and so that is one other element of the math that we will have to do because a portion of the um >> a portion of it will go to the DDA and a portion of it would go to urban rural and so I would you know that's one of the areas where it is possible that the um that uh overlap could increase for sure. Um, the other area across the street, I don't know why this mouse is not. There we go. Um, is are these two parcels right here, um, as it's designed today, um, essentially the office building is all on the urban removal piece only. Um, but I would anticipate that this lot probably does um, also get combined. And so, um, with that, I'm open to any questions that you have. You may have many as it relates to >> so in case just in case two two things to try to uncomplicate this one in case you were bored with 10,000 piece puzzles and threedimensional puzzles you now have the t different tip agreement puzzles in case [laughter] people want to participate that now now being sold at different game shops weird >> um what maybe to uncomplicate this a little bit the reason for the LDDA and the lura pieces of this I see you commissioner Lman one second um the the reason for the different pieces here are the urban renewal authority extend I mean it extends well beyond the LDDA area and LDA goes much farther north as we all know and so [clears throat] but the whole point of leveraging these types of financing mechanisms is to reactivate certain parts of the tax base right and so the lura has a majority of this portion that's relevant here and so but the LDDDA portions of the overlap can help enable that activation which then in turn can help kind of reactivate and stimulate the tax base on the on the LDTA properties. So, it's I I would love to say it's like kind of feeding I it's it's helping one um portion of this do better for the success of the other longer term. >> Yeah, >> just to kind of plain languageify that a little bit. Hopefully that like uncomp uncomplicates us a little bit. And one thing that I would just mention is that the missions of the downtown development authority and the urban removal authority are very similar. Um they're not exactly the same language in in state statute. Um and the urban renewal plan for Maine is really in service to this transit oriented and steam development that includes higher education and having um multimodal facilities. That's true also of the the downtown development authority. their plan, their master plan of development also includes those those um components. So, and it really in both cases is tied back to the comprehensive plan. So, what did what is it that we said that we wanted to develop in this area? Both of those plans want both the DDA and the urban renewal plan want that to happen. Um and so that's um that's this shared alignment and how we um and the DDA can advance this redevelopment in this area that um is in service to the that vision that we all share. >> We should want the lura efforts to succeed as much as the LDA efforts to succeed and that's like a rising tide lifting all boats here. Uh Commissioner Lynchman, I think you had a hair hand up before. >> Yeah. Thank you. Just a question and I apologize if you've already spoke to it. Um it's some [clears throat] I think it's the side of the room I can't hear you as well. Um the question I had on this DDA piece is just have the terms already been negotiated. So what's presented here is what DDA's already agreed to or is it going to them after this for final review or any potential changes? So, um, I asked that question myself. Um, the DDA executive director, Kimberly McKe, um, had given this to us and has drafted that IGA with the DDA's attorneys. Um, and you know, my understanding is that this that there wouldn't be changes that happen um, on the 26th um because this is in line with what the DBA said that they would like to see as the as the revenue sharing agreement. Um so my understanding is that there won't be changes um moving forward. Um it's a public body so of course that can change but my understanding is that it it that this is these are the deal points for the DDA. >> Thank you. >> I hope I I changed the setting so maybe you could hear me better. I hope that that's true. >> Thanks Jen for all your support today. >> Thanks Mr. Lman. Other questions? Do you need a motion on this? We don't have a a formal resolution in front of us. So, do you need any direction at this point? >> I think that direction would be um would be good because that's what we're going to um take back to the DBA and then obviously you'll see the IGA um at your next meeting. >> And let me ask it this way. Does anyone have a deep-seated opposition or finesse opposition to uh the deal points that were presented in the packet up here? >> I'm seeing a consistent note. >> Okay. >> So, does that give you clarity? >> I think it wouldn't hurt for us to take a vote. Um I don't know. >> Okay. Thumbs up sort of. Um, I'll just I guess I'll make a motion to continue proceeding with the negotiations as they currently have been presented. So, uh, with a second from Commissioner McCoy. Does that give you the clarity there? Great. Great. Uh, I made that motion. Commissioner McCoy seconded that. Uh, any discussion on that motion? >> See no discussion. All those in favor? >> All those opposed? That motion passes 9 to zero. Thank you very much, uh, Jen. And and just a quick note here um for everyone's benefit and for staff and the public um this consumed a lot of time. It's taken a lot of negotiations. In some cases, these were um flexing some muscles that the maybe the urban renewal authority had not flexed in years with some of these taxing authorities. So, thank you for all the work to yourself, to Katie join us today, um and to many others involved. Um hopefully this is strengthening relationships with tax entities that we may be going back to for future projects too >> and especially Teresa um for all of your efforts >> especially I was I had another comment there [laughter] just to say thank you for holding the floor on all of the financial aspects of that multiple tax entities. Thank you Teresa. Um great that it concludes item six on the agenda all five parts um of regular business. We do not have any uh special reports or presentations today. Um I'll just know that there's ongoing conversation just on coordination side based on the direction and suggestions from last meeting to figure out kind of when to bring those presentations back to Lura um this fall. So just wanted to make that note. Um moving on to item eight. Is there any update from finance that you want further? >> Nothing further. You don't want to give us more numbers? [laughter] No. >> If you think that's complicated, we'll wait till you see our financing package. >> Do we want to snooze? >> Oh, no. Snooze it. >> Snooze it. We're going to shut this meeting down. >> Um, with that, we'll move on to agenda item nine, comments from commissioners. Uh, Commissioner Lman, you want to kick us off? >> Thank you. My hand went up actually on the other topic, but it might be accumulation of both. Um, and want to reiterate that thanks to all the staff and folks who've been working on all these different pieces. I the question I had is at what point will this body sit together after all of the taxing and agreements are completed and what I'm thinking about is the impact report made an assumption of 100% of everything and it doesn't sound like that's what's going to happen. So just is a curiosity of that's how it was presented initially that it would require 100% I I'll be done in two minutes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, excuse me. I'm in a civic center in Superior that closes in three minutes. Um, so so that's my question. That document that we've been working on and has been updated assumes 100% of everything. So, um, and I'm going to have to get off because I have to be out of the building. So, I'll look forward to hearing what the answer is uh in the minutes. Thanks. And I I maybe I will just quickly say that the impact report is intended to model out what does it look like and what are those impacts to all of those taxing entities. So >> what is the maximum potential? >> What is the maximum potential? Um it's also a model. It's based on what developments are assumed to happen um you know and the exact amount of um mixed use versus you know um multif family those those things and what it actually costs to build that actually is the increment is based on what actually happens on the property tax side. So it's a model um and there's an expectation that it isn't um it isn't Um, exactly. You know, all models are as good as the information that that goes into it. And I we appreciate all the work that Andy Arnold did to to get us to this point and remodeling and remodeling as we were having conversations with the DBA, for example. So, um, the impact report itself does not have to change um because it is a point in time. Um but it is informative to the discussions and those um those negotiations that we have with all the taxes. >> I think if the question is how does this impact the project? >> Yeah. >> So remember I talked about a capital stack. Well the urban renewal authority is not issuing the debt for the project. They're transferring the increment to the city. The city's issuing the debt utilizing coops because it's a city project. So then we're working public improvement fund dollars and other issues in order to to to fill the capital stack. And so we we can finance it. And that's why I said if you thought this was complicated then the financing piece is a different component al together where we're bridging gaps and trying to figure that out. Harold and Jen. Um I think Commissioner Luckermanman was asking when when will we meet with the county about it? Is that something that you could share as part of this? >> She said as a board this >> Yeah, that's what she's saying is this board and the county when when does that happen or does it >> I think it could probably just provide a written update of like hey here's where this all got negotiated to. This was what was maximally modeled in in a kind of perfect world situation on that and this is where we're actually >> and and there's not necessarily a meeting. We will um the urban renewal plan that includes what are all those negotiated agreements will be sent to the county. Um we'd be happy to of course to send it to the commissioners. It's a requirement for us to send it to the assessor's office so that they can do the math um and they can understand what this looks like. And so once it's approved we will send it to um to Boulder County and we would be more than happy to send it to the commissioners and any other of the taxing entities that are interested in it. I just know she was looking for the answer in the minutes. [laughter] >> Great. Thank you. >> But there's not necessarily a meeting of of the commissioners and this and this board, although there certainly could be if that is something that great. >> Other comments from commissioners? >> Seeing none, I will just wrap up by saying um we discussed a lot of numbers and charts and modeling and stuff tonight. What really and a lot of different agreements and wording and negotiations. What really this is about is I mean this is exciting. This is like one of the major steps in confirming the financing plan and the financial stack for the first main transit station and the surrounding redevelopment um to really reactivate and uh grow our downtown strength our downtown. So thank you all for bearing with that. Thank you all the staff for the negotiations on that. Um with that uh we would move on to agenda item 10 to adjurnn. Are there any motions to show a motion from Commissioner McCoy with multiple enthusiastic seconds? I heard Commissioner Chris first. >> Um so that's McCoy, Christ. Uh all those in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Hearing none. Happy back to school. Um that passes 8 to zero.