Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Tif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huerfano County holds public hearing on 'Rio Cucharasen' redevelopment plan; officials outline TIF steps
Summary
Huerfano County commissioners heard presentations May 26 on a draft redevelopment plan identified in the record as the “Rio Cucharasen” plan that would use tax increment financing for infrastructure, housing and site remediation along US 160. Staff said a developer will be selected and financing ('capital stack') assembled; public commenters raised demolition, pool salvage and water-supply concerns.
Huerfano County commissioners held a public hearing on May 26 on the draft "Rio Cucharasen" redevelopment plan, which staff described as a county-initiated effort to unlock tax increment financing (TIF) for infrastructure, affordable housing near US 160, remediation and economic development.
Presenter (S3) told the board the authority for this type of plan is set out in statute (recorded in the hearing as “h b 24 dash 1 1 7 2”) and that planning materials in the packet included an April 18 draft, a Baker Tilly master plan, a site survey and a planning commission letter indicating the plan conforms with the county comprehensive plan. "There are several opportunity factors... investment in critical infrastructure, including water, sanitary sewers, stormwater systems...and affordable housing near transit," the presenter summarized.
On site conditions, the presenter said the inn on the property is likely beyond repair: "It's my opinion that the inn needs to be demolished. I just don't think it's a safe structure anymore," and added the concrete around the pool may be salvageable. The presenter said next steps include selecting a developer, designing water and sewer connections (most logically tying into Walsenburg), completing design and environmental clearance, and assembling a capital stack to fund infrastructure and development.
Public commenters echoed some staff assessments and voiced concerns. A local contractor (Resident, S9) said the historic inn is "not salvageable" and cautioned that attempting to save an existing pool structure can be more expensive than building anew. Johnny D Mullen (S8), speaking from Gardner, asked whether elements such as a proposed cafe and community kitchen remain in the plan and pressed whether housing units would be for sale or rental; he also raised water concerns, noting local hauling limits and asking that water supply and use be carefully considered before large-scale building.
Paul Benedetti (S13), an attorney who spoke later in the meeting, reminded the board of a statutory timing feature: the record reflected a 120-day window for adoption from this first public hearing (subject to subsequent hearings and technical requirements) and flagged a technicality for parcels assessed as agricultural within the last five years that may require buy-in letters from taxing entities (including the school district).
No final action to adopt the plan was taken at the hearing; staff said they will gather public feedback and return with revisions and a recommendation. The presenter noted the county will work with a developer and the city of Walsenburg to finalize utility connections and complete required environmental and permitting steps before any construction begins.
Next procedural step: staff will incorporate public comments into the draft and return the plan for further review; the hearing record notes a 120-day statutory adoption window beginning with this public hearing.
