Board of County Commissioners Business Meeting - workshop

Leslie Somi, Commissioner. Carrie Warren-Gilley, Commissioner. Lisa Starris, Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. In the previous slide, we were talking about the special session that happened with our tax revenues. Yes. Is next year the last year that we will see implications from that work?

And then the drop in the commercial property tax stays steady at that? Yes, that will stay at 25%. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

2030 is the first year we see any kind of increase particularly in our property taxes our income coming in and we've got 30 million to get us through those years Of ongoing for salary increases, all of those types of things. Yes. Health insurance increases that we anticipate. And that was why we strategically set those funds aside so that we didn't just blend it all last year.

Yeah, SAFCO. Just to clarify something that I just heard. So you're saying the 1A funds, the $30 million that we didn't spend in the first year, We'll have to carry through until 2030, but we'll have to carry what with it? What all will that, are you saying that needs to cover?

to use on an ongoing basis. Okay, so the 30 million for, okay, so then, there's one time set aside for projects. Yes. Okay, I just, so the 30 million ongoing is more like the FTE growth or whatever we would need for. Yes, or contracts. Yeah, contracts. Okay, good. Because the insurance got folded in there, and as important as that is, and increasing comp and everything we're doing, I don't know that the voters were contemplating us using 1A funds for insurance. And so what that means, though, and what sucks, just to put it where the goods can get in, what sucks is that it means with our barely

Thank you. Lisa, I appreciate Jeff talking about the specific ownership tax and reminding us that we did that and now we're going to see that reflected. So not only increases but decreases will be reflected there.

Do we just see a, I mean, is it just a continuing decline in that fund typically?

So you mean like we would transfer some of those back into the general fund? Because this fund wouldn't be able to possibly get...

Did we just choose not to have that in the thing?

Should we all just take a second to think about what a bone saw would feel like?

That was the county attorney's office. Okay. And that's all gone through IT and all that stuff and everything? Yes. Okay. That's the quick alert replacement.

The only thing I will say, I do, I can't remember if on the CIP stuff you've done that kind of color coding before, but I really... Last quarter. This is okay. I really liked, I like that, and it's a good visual of where we are on all of these projects. Well, good.

Yes, Commissioner Fields. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to say that, for me, this was almost like a review because a lot of the requests have already appeared in front of me. the board and so I did not have to ask questions because I was familiar with the content and the topic which makes it very easy to follow your presentation so all that pre-work shows up and the work has kind of already been done so thank you all right well thank you very much thank you we appreciate it oh boy oh boy

Michelle Halstead, Commissioner's Office. Rhonda Fields, Commissioner.

Leslie Summey, Commissioner. Carrie Waring-Galley, Commissioner.

Sure Thank you very much. Um, so The market value is that you're just going to take the price that they're buying the land for or do you use a the assessor's value?

So I am thinking back about four months ago we had an issue with a property that came forward that had this very thing right it the by the TOC station or they wanted to just north of Greenwood Village.

Right, right. And remember there was a situation, now I can't remember the terminology, but they had, I think they had zoned it Or maybe it had been... They de-annexed from Greenwood Village. They were going to go into the city of Aurora, and then they changed their minds, so we had to do that. Supposedly they had collected, or they should have collected cash in lieu or land development, but that didn't happen at that point, and so then we were trying to collect it almost in arrears, kind of, wasn't it?

Because we actually delayed it by two weeks. We delayed approval by two weeks so that we could...

Well, I'm just thinking this seems like maybe that would have been an example of why cleanup is appropriate. Because it seemed like it was, it should have happened before, but it didn't, and now it's gone through all these changes, but can we collect it now in this step of the process?

Because it came in at a higher density, I think.

As the thought was going, it was getting higher and higher. In the first sentence, the clause, then unless the county has initiated the rezoning. So if we're doing the rezoning as a result of TOD, and the buildings aren't, there yet, and it's going to create higher density, which would have an impact on the schools, they, we can't reassess the cash and loan, or the land dedication or whatever?

If it's, okay, what? Because it's already been subdivided.

What if they change the plan? So even within the subdivision, and I don't, this is where my knowledge comes to the end of the road. I don't know, let's say, because you can subdivide it. and do a, let's say condos, if condos were built in Colorado, hypothetically, or you could subdivide it and in that same subdivision, could you then switch it to more dense multifamily?

Okay. But because the subdivision already happened based on the condos, we wouldn't go back to that same developer or subdivider, right? Correct. even though their plans may change from condos to more dense multifamily? And we don't want to just use the delta of that?

As we like to say, it's all made up anyway.

I don't know what well and let me say this I don't know if it's worth going back to a developer in that especially if it's in a TOD and we are trying to incentivize more more density we wouldn't want to disincentivize it by saying now you're gonna have to pay the Delta between the condos in the apartment complex right and I don't even know if that'd be I don't know the financial impact that that would be I don't know what the land to or population for the school would be? I just am thinking through the broader policy, but in terms of also policy is, what are we trying to incentivize or disince

I'm on the record. No, but that would just be a, because we are, a lot of times, and this is what I like about This is what I like about government and the things in front of it. I think the interesting stuff is when you get into a tension between different things that you want to incentivize and what is the sweet spot. And so I guess to me, we come down to the math and is it even worth it to try to get them to cover that delta? What would be the impact? Because if not for parks, especially for schools, parks is different. Parks is kind of different. But for schools who are really talking abou

But didn't we choose to, I mean, didn't we with our affordable housing stuff put in the ability to waive if you get to a certain density? Those fees and this, I'm assuming this fee, if I remember right, was part of that?

Yeah, but that was affordable housing. This could be anything. yeah I mean so yeah I mean yes there are times we played in that yeah but for but that's affordable housing yeah I think there are different incentives we want to create for affordable housing where's just any market rate housing not quite the same motivation on our part yeah and I so I would be interested to see what the math is on that like what the difference would be and what impact it would have on the schools. Because if you're talking about cash in lieu of land dedication and it's going to go to the schools and they're going

What are we trying to accomplish here? I'm just trying to see what the risks might be and the advantages that we're trying to pursue.

And we're not looking at trying to broaden it at all?

And it'd be broader if we looked at industrial and commercial, too. Wouldn't that be? It would be. Because we don't do that yet. We don't. But other jurisdictions do.

Commissioner Campbell. So to this point, so on page 13, in our binders, if you would like to go to the final and dedication, which is the study from Tischler, Weiss, or whatever, it has, page 13 has figure four. So, and as we have looked at things, yeah, here, I don't know if you did the reading. As one of the things that we've always done when we've looked at impact fees and changing kind of the way we look at things is looking at surrounding jurisdictions. And so when Ginny and I were talking about this and this kind of, this question came up around industrial and residential, I said, well,

I also think that that might be appropriate.

Madam Chair, and I would never suggest that we would do that. That we wouldn't use that. Right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been contemplating this too Commissioner Campbell and because your Dove Valley area is a perfect example of there are actually a lot of walking trails and everything in that area that you know green spaces use and clearly you talk a lot about Denver South contemplating this very issue and how they're going to create these spaces as an after-fact So I had two questions about it, Matt. One was, I could see them saying, yeah, I'll give you this piece of one acre out in the middle of nowhere that's not really going to do us any good. Can we, does the statute allow us t

Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you for that. the other question that I had was I'm trying to remember in some of our development or when you're allowing for these things I'm thinking of like the thing that we did where the park is actually the stormwater control by Potter's Church so you know do we have another part of our code or land use or whatever that requires a certain set-aside for stormwater you know and those types of things and could it somehow be similar to that. I mean, do you see where I'm going? I don't know how to say all the right words with it, but I thought that was a cleve

You mean so it's not our maintenance issue?

So in an industrial area, you might not be able to have this type of thing? So that might be something you all know about.

Madam Chair, if I may make a clarifying question. we just need to right now as I'm like trying to read through and think about what we would be putting out for public comment what's the timeline you guys are trying to do because I know this also kind of got held up we're trying to not we don't want to overly rush but we want to keep things moving what is a way to incorporate the kind of industrial commercial conversation because it just would be going out for public comment like we can if we're like okay there's not really a way or oh no we think this data could work and whatever but like that

Well, one, if we... you I mean some there's already a template out there I mean two jurisdictions at least have language to it and so you quickly start there and then give I mean it wouldn't be the same as like a nice clean draft it'd be very like conceptual I guess so that would kind of mess it up a little bit in terms of the cleanness of what we're presenting but I don't do we have to for public comment have the actual language, or does it, I'm just thinking back to when we did oil and gas, and I think this was before your time, so when we had original Bob, and we, it was tighter, I mean, it

Yeah. Would you be open to moving forward with what they have? And we could contemplate the commercial aspect of it and add as an amendment later.

Right, but we could do the commercial as a dip. I mean, we were doing that with the oil and gas because we had something that was, like, knocking on our door. Right. Versus, I mean, we always probably have industrial knocking on our door, but I'm just wondering, like, could we... do let you guys move forward and then ask them to come back on a separate track that would take us down the commercial aspect of it, just so that they feel more comfortable with designing it and making sure they had enough information, which then we would add it as an amendment next year.

But would it have to go back out to public comment? So you're basically redoing the entire process and planning commission? Or what if this just backed up like a couple weeks? What is easier for you guys?

I'm good to move forward with this. Great. I mean, to answer Commissioner Warren-Billy's question and keep us on chart, I'm good to move forward with this. I was just trying to, I didn't, if there was like a, again, kind of way to get it going so it kept going so that it, we're not then having to come back and do amendments. But whatever I, whatever staff thinks is easiest and best is great. And I think I know the question, I know the conversation that Attorney Hader wants to have. Which we can't have right now.

I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't be opposed to having the conversation around commercial. I just don't want to slow the work that y'all are doing and make Yeah. And we can add that in, I think, at a later date.

With direction to work on the industrial commercial. Yes, we do. Thank you.

Pardon? Can you talk back to me? Madam Chair, I move that the board go into executive session pursuant to section 2464024B of the Colorado Revised Statutes to receive legal advice regarding the following. A Barraza case and spin micromobility agreement, parenthetical, e-scooters and pursuant to section 246424B and E of the Colorado revised statutes to develop strategy and instruct negotiators to receive legal advice regarding the following. Simon Grosby settlement demand to Boom Supersonic request follow-up and three Beehive Industries incentive payment agreement request. Second.