Attorney outlines roles, limits and post‑2015 changes to Colorado urban renewal law

Corey Hoffman, an attorney with Hoffman, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, told the Pueblo City Council Executive Committee on Sept. 25 that city councils are the policy makers for urban renewal plans while urban renewal authorities implement those policies and administer projects.

Hoffman said, “Urban renewal at the end of the day is still about blight elimination. Urban renewal is not an economic redevelopment tool.” He described urban renewal plans as policy documents the governing body adopts after finding blighted conditions and said those plans typically remain in place indefinitely while tax‑increment financing (TIF) collections have a statutory clock.

Hoffman summarized the two‑step process that must precede adoption of an urban renewal plan: a council or governing body must (1) find blight under the statutory factors and (2) decide whether an urban renewal plan is an appropriate policy response. He emphasized that an urban renewal authority is a separate legal entity that “can sue and be sued” and which carries out redevelopment agreements, issues obligations (broadly defined under the Urban Renewal Act) and, in some communities, issues bonds pledged to TIF. He noted that urban renewal authorities do not impose a mill levy and therefore generally are not subject to TABOR voter‑approval rules.

Hoffman explained legislative changes enacted in 2015 by House Bill 1348 that increased participation by other taxing entities on an urban renewal authority board (adding members appointed by the county, a local school board elected official and a special district official) and required negotiated agreements with affected taxing entities before TIF may be collected. He said the statute also requires that, at the conclusion of a project, leftover property‑tax increment in a special fund be refunded pro rata to taxing entities when the authority has no remaining pledged obligations.

On plan design and implementation, Hoffman said approaches vary: some jurisdictions use narrowly drawn project‑specific plans (often initiated by a developer) while others use broad, template or framework plans for larger areas. He explained common terminology under the statute — a “project” can be the larger plan area while individual development activities within it are “undertakings” or “activities.”

Hoffman addressed administrative funding for an authority, noting the statute authorizes administrative offices and staff but does not prescribe how administrative dollars are generated. He said practices range from taking an administrative fee from each plan area to allocating administrative costs from less active plan revenues or intergovernmental agreements with the municipality.

Committee members asked about board selection, oversight, bonding authority and geographic limits of urban renewal expenditures. Hoffman said mayoral appointment with governing‑body consent is the statutory appointment mechanism for board members (aside from the county, school district and special district members HB 1348 added). He recommended ongoing collaboration and regular joint study sessions between council and an urban renewal authority to keep policy alignment as council priorities evolve. On bonds, Hoffman said authorities commonly pledge expected TIF to pay obligations and that such obligations are evaluated for sufficiency of pledged revenue; he noted he is not a public‑finance specialist.

On geographic reach, Hoffman said the statute allows expenditures outside plan boundaries when there is a demonstrable nexus to preventing or eliminating blight in the plan area, and he gave examples such as drainage or pedestrian bridges built outside a plan to benefit the plan area.

The presentation closed with committee members discussing local practices for vetting consultants, administrative cost allocations, and the tradeoffs between a separate authority and having the governing body serve as the authority. No formal council action was taken at the meeting; members signaled interest in stronger liaison practices and periodic joint study sessions with Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority.