In reference to the March 1, 2006 article in the Trail concerning the future of EPURA; I am compelled to comment. Comments in blue were copied from that original March 1, 2006 Trail article.
The future of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) will be in the hands of the next Town Board and possibly voters, officials said at a February meeting.
The whole premise of this article is deeply offensive to me and highlights and strikes at the core political problems in this community. Who runs this town the citizens of Estes Park or Town staff mayorally appointed to commissions and boards? The future of EPURA is not in the hands of the new group of trustees as this article suggests, but must be in the hands of the citizens of Estes Park. This article is just more of the same political flimflam.
Town attorneys Greg White and Jim Windholz outlined options for continuing EPURA in a recent memo to the Town Goal Team.
First things first, Estes Park I would like to introduce you to Jim Windholz, attorney at law. As critical as we are of The Towns attorney Greg White our opinion of Jim Windholz is respectful. Mr. Windholz is a fine attorney specializing in Urban Renewal, specifically the exploitation of the Blight definition, so much so as to earn a handle “Professor Blight”. A hired gun so to speak.
Raising the relevant question: why is the town spending our hard earned tax dollars on TWO attorneys to answer ONE question? Professor Blight does not come cheap.
Critics of extending EPURA say it’s a way for the Town to appropriate money from sales and property tax coffers and distribute it under the public radar.
As a critic of EPURA it falls in the hands of the Estesparkian to point out all the options available to you the voting public. Critic - yes - as a public service, point counter point.
“EPURA is an effective economic development mechanism, a benefit for the Town and the community,” said Town administrator Randy Repola. Town Board Goal Team number four is currently looking at options for extending the group’s life.
Mr. Windholz was hired to point out options to keep EPURA alive for his client - goal team four - who ever in the hell that is. Who voted for a goal team four, I do not remember anyone representing a political agenda “I support a goal team four”? Where in the world does that come from?
But officials list EPURA benefits and say urban renewal is a faster, convenient way of tackling large-scale improvement projects. EPURA can enter into long-term debt for projects and into public/private partnerships, said Repola. The Town Board, on the other hand, must get voter approval to borrow tax dollars for large projects.
Mr. Repola’s comment is a mute point, because the town already came out and said they will not support the Down Town Business district to get the one big project they desperately need “Parking”. So, say good night EPURA it’s time to go away. No more hocus pocus. Voter approval is necessary in any event, if the community does not approve of a project why in the name of oligarchy are you doing it? Randy Repola is a mayorally appointed member of the EPURA board.
A final alternative offered by attorneys envisions a new start for EPURA, extending funding for an additional 25 years.
“Subject to new, additional and continuing findings of blight within the new, expanded, or reduced urban renewal area, a new urban renewal plan would need to be drafted, reviewed and approved,” the memo states.
This option would require a new blight study, which typically costs between $50,000 and $100,000, to identify future project areas within Town limits and tax increment financing would be updated to the date of the new urban renewal plan, officials said.
The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority failed to follow through and complete its original mandate in the downtown business district. The original and comprehensive plan, after the flood, was approved for the original authority but set aside. Instead of following its original mandate EPURA took off on its own pulling projects like “The Convention Center” and “the Visitor Center” “East Bound Development and River Walk” out of thin air. The originally approved plan remains unfulfilled twenty five years latter.
What Mr. Windholz did not tell you, but was not hired to tell you the citizens of this community (by goal team four) is, you have more options and they are:
Follow the issue closely.
Vote No to extend EPURA in any form.
Vote No to continue TIF.
Be proactive by creating a citizens petition demanding town trustees abolish EPURA - allow it to expire and go away as a natural coarse of events, or immediately, or as was intended when the special district was created. After all this is still your town and you are in charge, not goal team four – not the mayorally appointed EPURA board, if you choose. Colorado State Statute 31-25-115: Transfer - abolishment.
The original purpose for establishing EPURA has been long lost and the operation and direction has become muddled and mired in local political control of TIF funding. A special district like EPURA is a project authority, period, that project should be very specific and the funding exactly identified. Not the helter - skelter money grab this authority has degenerated into. The time has come for EPURA to go away and for the community to regroup and rethink its needs and its approach to meeting those needs.
This is all about the money - TIF money. A moral dilemma for your trustees
