Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal And Bond Debt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors discuss long-running urban renewal bond indebtedness tied to Harris property; no new recourse approved
Summary
Board members discussed refinancing history and continuing payments on an urban renewal bond connected to a Harris property, and noted outstanding tax issues and a pending appeal that complicate selling or clearing title.
Board members spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing the county's ongoing payment obligations for an urban renewal bond tied to a Harris property and the limited options available to recoup losses.
County staff and supervisors described the bond history as involving refinancing of earlier 2010-series obligations and a 2019 series; those refinancings followed defaults on earlier bonds. The board's immediate action was to approve a manual check to UMB Bank for $394,350 to meet the current obligation; members agreed that, if no development occurs on the property, the county will continue to make scheduled debt payments in coming years. One board member said the county has some amounts that may be recoupable at sale (identified in the transcript as $5.4 million) but that there is limited recourse to recover the refinancing costs tied to the earlier default.
Board members discussed several complicating factors: outstanding property taxes for 2024 were said to be unpaid by the current property holder, prolonged litigation and appeals affecting title, and prior agreements allowing parcel sales that did not produce anticipated development activity. The county attorney and staff indicated that refinancing had been used earlier to support infrastructure and development efforts; those steps were taken in good faith but have led to a continuing county obligation while the property remains undeveloped and in legal limbo.
Supervisors suggested pursuing further discussion and possible negotiations with potential developers if the county decides to back a sale or redevelopment, and noted that any such approach would carry its own risks and require additional board direction. The board did not adopt any new recoupment strategy or direct legal action at this meeting; the conversation ended with acknowledgement that the topic will need special attention in a future work session or meeting.
No roll-call vote or formal motion altering the county's obligations was recorded in the transcript during the discussion; the single immediately related public action was approval of the manual check for the bond payment recorded elsewhere on the agenda.
