El Paso County reviews Moreno and Cascade TIF request; no vote today, formal vote set for Nov. 18

El Paso County commissioners convened a work session to review a tax increment financing (TIF) request for the Moreno and Cascade Avenue development, a two-phase downtown Colorado Springs project that would include a 181-room Catbird-branded hotel and a later residential component modeled at 77 to 115 multifamily units. County staff emphasized this was an informational meeting; no decisions were made and a formal vote is scheduled for Nov. 18.

County financial staff said the overall TIF request across affected jurisdictions totals about $28.4 million to $29.2 million over 25 years, which is roughly $16.4 million to $16.9 million when converted to net present value (NPV). "Giving $6,000,000 over 25 years is not the same thing as giving $6,000,000 today," said Nikki Simmons, El Paso County chief financial officer, explaining why the board should consider both the nominal totals and the discounted NPV figures.

Why the session matters: the request would capture 100% of the county's property tax increment within the proposed URA boundary and 75% of the county's 1% general sales tax (El Paso County's total sales tax is 1.23%, of which 0.23% is a dedicated public-safety tax that the county does not allow to be included). Simmons told the board the county's share of the request equates to an estimated NPV of roughly $3.4 million to $3.5 million, with average annual impacts in the tens of thousands of dollars.

County staff also explained how they modeled two development scenarios because different Phase 2 housing forms change property-tax projections. Using the county's full, voter-approved mill levy (rather than a temporarily reduced levy used in an initial consultant analysis), staff estimated the annual county property-tax increment exposure would average about $110,000 to $114,000 per year; under the URA consultant's reduced-levy inputs the estimate was lower. Simmons warned of a potential TABOR timing effect in 2025 and said staff would work with the URA and developer on a payment structure (front-loading and later ratcheting) to mitigate a single-year TABOR spike.

Project scope and public improvements: presenters said the site covers roughly 1.69 acres and six parcels in County Commissioner District 3. The URA/EPS analysis lists about $10.8 million of eligible public improvements; county staff's review prioritized roughly $5.19 million of those as county-appropriate improvements. The developers said a structured parking component exists and estimated the garage portion at about $2.075 million; that garage value was not included in the county's prioritized $5.19 million because the URA/EPS materials did not originally list parking as a public improvement. "We're building a parking structure," Jeff Finn of Norwood Development told the board, but commissioners questioned whether valet-limited access would reduce the structure's qualification as a "public" improvement for TIF purposes.

Attainable housing and financing options: Norwood representatives described Phase 2 as a "missing middle" housing opportunity intended to provide workforce or attainable units (the team said workforce housing is generally in the 80%–120% area median income range). Developers said they are evaluating for-rent and for-sale models and exploring partnerships with organizations such as Elevation Community Land Trust; they also noted that deeper subsidized affordable housing (low-income housing tax credit projects) would change the tax and revenue calculus because nonprofit ownership typically reduces property-tax revenue.

Process and jurisdictional approvals: Jeriah Walker, executive director of the Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Authority, said the URA and other jurisdictional reviews are in progress. The presentation listed unanimous approval from School District 11 and the Southeastern Water Conservancy District and noted upcoming reviews with the Pikes Peak Library District and Colorado Springs City Council, with the county's formal action planned for Nov. 18.

Commissioner questions and concerns focused on three areas: the county's share relative to county-prioritized public improvements (one commissioner said she was uncomfortable exceeding roughly 50% of the prioritized county-eligible cost), whether the parking structure should count as a public improvement if access is effectively valet-only, and how a privately owned but publicly accessible hotel lobby would be treated for activities such as political petitioning. Chair Geithner thanked staff for the analysis and reiterated the need to preserve the county's fiscal position while weighing potential long-term tax-base growth.

No formal action was taken at the work session. Staff recorded that a vote on the TIF request is currently planned for Nov. 18 and said they will continue to refine the payment structure and public-improvement definitions in coordination with the URA and developer.

What to watch next: the county's formal vote (scheduled Nov. 18), any change in the county's negotiated share of sales-tax or property-tax increments, whether the parking structure is re-classified as a prioritized public improvement, and the final Phase 2 housing model and affordability commitments.