CO Code § 31-25-107 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 31 - Government - Municipal|Article 25 - Public Improvements|Part 1 - Urban Renewal|§ 31-25-107. Approval of Urban Renewal Plans by Local Governing Body - Definitions

     An authority shall not actually undertake an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area unless based on evidence presented at a public hearing the governing body, by resolution, has determined such area to be a slum, blighted area, or a combination thereof and designated such area as appropriate for an urban renewal project.    Notwithstanding this part 1, and in addition to any other notice required by law, within thirty days of commissioning a study to determine whether an area is a slum, blighted area, or a combination thereof in accordance with the requirements of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the authority shall provide notice to any owner of private property located in the area that is the subject of the study by mailing notice to the owner by regular mail at the last-known address of record. The notice shall state that the authority is commencing a study necessary for making a determination as to whether the area in which the owner owns property is a slum or a blighted area. Within seven days of making such determination, the authority or the municipality, as applicable, shall also provide notice of the determination to any owner of private property located in the area that is the subject of the study by mailing notice to the owner by regular mail at the last-known address of record. For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), “private property” means, as applied to real property, only a fee ownership interest.      Except for urban renewal plans subject to section (l), the boundaries of an area that the governing body determines to be a blighted area shall be drawn as narrowly as the governing body determines feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the proposed urban renewal area. The governing body shall not approve an urban renewal plan until a general plan for the municipality has been prepared. An authority shall not acquire real property for an urban renewal project unless the local governing body has approved the urban renewal plan in accordance with subsection (4) of this section. In making the determination as to whether a particular area is blighted pursuant to the provisions of this part 1, any particular condition found to be present may satisfy as many of the factors referenced in section 31-25-103 (2) as are applicable to such condition. (c) (I) Except for urban renewal plans subject to section (l), the boundaries of an area that the governing body determines to be a blighted area shall be drawn as narrowly as the governing body determines feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the proposed urban renewal area. The governing body shall not approve an urban renewal plan until a general plan for the municipality has been prepared. An authority shall not acquire real property for an urban renewal project unless the local governing body has approved the urban renewal plan in accordance with subsection (4) of this section. In making the determination as to whether a particular area is blighted pursuant to the provisions of this part 1, any particular condition found to be present may satisfy as many of the factors referenced in section 31-25-103 (2) as are applicable to such condition.    Notwithstanding any other provision of this part 1, no area that has been designated as an urban renewal area shall contain any agricultural land unless:   The agricultural land is a brownfield site;    Not less than one-half of the urban renewal area as a whole consists of parcels of land containing urban-level development that, at the time of the designation of such area, are determined to constitute a slum or blighted area, or a combination thereof, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section and not less than two-thirds of the perimeter of the urban renewal area as a whole is contiguous with urban-level development as determined at the time of the designation of such area;    The agricultural land is an enclave within the territorial boundaries of a municipality and the entire perimeter of the enclave has been contiguous with urban-level development for a period of not less than three years as determined at the time of the designation of the area;    Each public body that levies an ad valorem property tax on the agricultural land agrees in writing to the inclusion of the agricultural land within the urban renewal area; or    The agricultural land was included in an approved urban renewal plan prior to June 1, 2010.       Notwithstanding any other provision of this part 1, for a period commencing on June 1, 2010, and concluding ten years from June 1, 2010, and in addition to the provisions of subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (c), no area that has been designated as an urban renewal area shall contain any agricultural land unless:   The agricultural land is contiguous with an urban renewal area in existence as of June 1, 2010;    The person who is the fee simple owner of the agricultural land as of June 1, 2010, is also the fee simple owner of land within the urban renewal area as of June 1, 2010, that is contiguous with the agricultural land; and    Both the agricultural land and the land within the urban renewal area that is described in sub-subparagraph (B) of this subparagraph (III) will be developed solely for the purpose of creating primary manufacturing jobs, and any ancillary jobs necessary to support such manufacturing operations, for the duration of the period during which property tax revenues in excess of a base amount are paid into a special fund pursuant to subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section for the purpose of financing an urban renewal project. For purposes of this subparagraph (III), “primary manufacturing jobs” means manufacturing jobs that produce products that are in excess of those that will be consumed within the boundaries of the state and that are exported to other states and foreign countries in exchange for value.          In the case of an urban renewal plan approved or substantially modified on or after June 1, 2010, the plan shall include a legal description of the urban renewal area, including the legal description of any agricultural land proposed for inclusion within the urban renewal area pursuant to the conditions specified in subparagraph (II) or (III) of paragraph (c) of this subsection (1).       Prior to its approval of an urban renewal plan, the governing body shall submit such plan to the planning commission of the municipality, if any, for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. The planning commission shall submit its written recommendations with respect to the proposed urban renewal plan to the governing body within thirty days after receipt of the plan for review. Upon receipt of the recommendations of the planning commission or, if no recommendations are received within said thirty days, without such recommendations, the governing body may proceed with the hearing on the proposed urban renewal plan prescribed by subsection (3) of this section.      The governing body shall hold a public hearing on an urban renewal plan or substantial modification of an approved urban renewal plan no less than thirty days after public notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality. The notice shall describe the time, date, place, and purpose of the hearing, shall generally identify the urban renewal area covered by the plan, and shall outline the general scope of the urban renewal project under consideration.    Where an authority intends to acquire private property by eminent domain within the urban renewal area to be subsequently transferred to a private party in accordance with the requirements of section (2), the governing body, prior to the commencement of the acquisition of such property, shall first hold a public hearing on the use of eminent domain as a means to acquire such property after written notice of the time, date, place, and purpose of the hearing has been provided to each owner of property within the meaning of section 31-25-105.5 that is within the urban renewal area at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. In order to authorize the use of eminent domain as a means to acquire property, a governing body shall base its decision on such authorization on a finding of blighted or slum conditions without regard to the economic performance of the property to be acquired. (3.5)   At least thirty days prior to the hearing on an urban renewal plan or a substantial modification to such plan, regardless of when the urban renewal plan was first approved, the governing body or the authority shall submit such plan or modification to the board of county commissioners, and, if property taxes collected as a result of the county levy will be utilized, the governing body or the authority shall also submit an urban renewal impact report, which shall include, at a minimum, the following information concerning the impact of such plan:   The estimated duration of time to complete the urban renewal project;    The estimated annual property tax increment to be generated by the urban renewal project and the portion of such property tax increment to be allocated during this period to fund the urban renewal project;    An estimate of the impact of the urban renewal project on county revenues and on the cost and extent of additional county infrastructure and services required to serve development within the proposed urban renewal area, and the benefit of improvements within the urban renewal area to existing county infrastructure;    A statement setting forth the method under which the authority or the municipality will finance, or that agreements are in place to finance, any additional county infrastructure and services required to serve development in the urban renewal area for the period in which all or any portion of the property taxes described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section and levied by a county are paid to the authority; and    Any other estimated impacts of the urban renewal project on county services or revenues.       The inadvertent failure of a governing body or an authority to submit an urban renewal plan, substantial modification to the plan, or an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, to a board of county commissioners in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3.5) shall neither create a cause of action in favor of any party nor invalidate any urban renewal plan or modification to the plan.    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a city and county shall not be required to submit an urban renewal impact report satisfying the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3.5). (3.7) Upon request of the governing body or the authority, each county that is entitled to receive a copy of the plan shall provide available county data and projections to assist the governing body or the authority in preparing the urban renewal impact report required pursuant to subsection (3.5) of this section.          Following such hearing, the governing body may approve an urban renewal plan if it finds that:   A feasible method exists for the relocation of individuals and families who will be displaced by the urban renewal project in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families;    A feasible method exists for the relocation of business concerns that will be displaced by the urban renewal project in the urban renewal area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities and public and commercial facilities;    The governing body has taken reasonable efforts to provide written notice of the public hearing prescribed by subsection (3) of this section to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the proposed urban renewal area at their last known address of record at least thirty days prior to such hearing. Such notice shall contain the same information as is required for the notice described in subsection (3) of this section.    No more than one hundred twenty days have passed since the commencement of the first public hearing of the urban renewal plan pursuant to subsection (3) of this section;    Except for urban renewal plans subject to section (2)(l), if the urban renewal plan contains property that was included in a previously submitted urban renewal plan that the governing body failed to approve pursuant to this section, at least twenty-four months shall have passed since the commencement of the prior public hearing concerning such property pursuant to subsection (3) of this section unless substantial changes have occurred since the commencement of such hearing that result in such property constituting a blighted area pursuant to section 31-25-103;    The urban renewal plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality as a whole;    The urban renewal plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprise; and    The authority or the municipality will adequately finance, or that agreements are in place to finance, any additional county infrastructure and services required to serve development within the urban renewal area for the period in which all or any portion of the property taxes described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section and levied by a county are paid to the authority. (4.5) In addition to the findings otherwise required to be made by the governing body pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, where an urban renewal plan seeks to acquire private property by eminent domain for subsequent transfer to a private party pursuant to section 31-25-105.5 (2) , the governing body may approve the urban renewal plan where it finds, in connection with a hearing satisfying the requirements of subsection (3) of this section, that the urban renewal plan has met the requirements of section 31-25-105.5 (2) and that the principal public purpose for adoption of the urban renewal plan is to facilitate redevelopment in order to eliminate or prevent the spread of physically blighted or slum areas.       In case the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land which, under the urban renewal plan, is to be developed for residential uses, the governing body shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section and shall also determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe, and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas (including other portions of the urban renewal area); that the conditions of blight in the urban renewal area and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality.    In case the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land which, under the urban renewal plan, is to be developed for nonresidential uses, the local governing body shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section and shall also determine that such nonresidential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives and that the contemplated acquisition of the area may require the exercise of governmental action, as provided in this part 1, because of being in a blighted area.    An urban renewal plan may be modified at any time; but, if modified after the lease or sale by the authority of real property in the urban renewal project area, such modification shall be subject to such rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser or his successor in interest may be entitled to assert. Any proposed modification shall be submitted to the governing body for approval. If the modification will substantially change provisions of the urban renewal plan regarding land area, land use, authorization to collect incremental tax revenue, the extent of the use of tax increment financing, the scope or nature of the urban renewal project, the scope or method of financing, design, building requirements, timing, or procedure, as previously approved, or where such modification will substantially clarify a plan that, when approved, was lacking in specificity as to the urban renewal project or financing, then the modification is substantial and subject to all of the requirements of this section. For urban renewal plans in which a pledge of the revenues deposited into the special fund created pursuant to subsection (9) of this section was made by an indenture or other legally binding document that is separate from the plan itself prior to January 1, 2016, a pledge to secure the payment of refunding bonds is not a substantial modification and is not subject to the requirements of this subsection (7). Not less than thirty days prior to approving any modification of an urban renewal plan, the governing body or urban renewal authority shall provide a detailed written description of the proposed modification to each taxing entity that levies taxes on property located within the urban renewal area and a notice of the date and time of the meeting at which the governing body will consider the modification. Any taxing entity that levies taxes on property located within the urban renewal area may file an action in the state district court exercising jurisdiction over the county in which the urban renewal area is located for an order determining, under a de novo standard of review, whether the modification is a substantial modification. Further, if requested by the taxing entity, the court shall enjoin any action by the authority pursuant to the modification until the court has determined whether the modification is a substantial modification and, if so, shall further enjoin any action by the authority until there has been compliance with subsection (9.5) of this section. (7.5) No action may be brought to enjoin any undertaking or activity of the authority pursuant to an urban renewal plan, including the issuance of bonds, the incurrence of other financial obligations, or the pledge of revenue, unless the action is commenced within forty-five days after the date on which the authority provided notice of its intention regarding such undertaking or activity. The notice must describe the undertaking or activity proposed to be engaged in by the authority and specify that any action to enjoin the undertaking or activity must be brought within forty-five days from the date of the notice. The notice must be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the county. On or before the date of publication of the notice, the authority shall also mail a copy of the notice to each taxing entity that levies taxes on property within the urban renewal area.    Upon the approval by the governing body of an urban renewal plan or a substantial modification thereof, the provisions of said plan with respect to the land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing, or procedure applicable to the property covered by said plan shall be controlling with respect thereto.      Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any urban renewal plan, as originally approved or as later modified pursuant to this part 1, may contain a provision that the property taxes of specifically designated public bodies, if any, levied after the effective date of the approval of such urban renewal plan upon taxable property in an urban renewal area each year or that municipal sales taxes collected within said area, or both such taxes, by or for the benefit of the designated public body must be divided for a period not to exceed twenty-five years after the effective date of adoption of such a provision, as follows:   That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or for each such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in the urban renewal area last certified prior to the effective date of approval of the urban renewal plan or, as to an area later added to the urban renewal area, the effective date of the modification of the plan, or that portion of municipal sales taxes collected within the boundaries of said urban renewal area in the twelve-month period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of approval of said plan, or both such portions, shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body.    That portion of said property taxes or all or any portion of said sales taxes, or both, in excess of the amount of property taxes or sales taxes paid into the funds of each such public body in accordance with the requirements of subsection (9)(a)(I) of this section must be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the authority to pay the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by, whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise, the authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, an urban renewal project, or to make payments under an agreement executed pursuant to this section. Any excess municipal sales tax or property tax collections not allocated pursuant to this subsection (9)(a)(II) must be paid into the funds of the municipality or other taxing entity, as applicable. Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in an urban renewal area exceeds the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in such urban renewal area, as provided in subsection (9)(a)(I) of this section, all of the taxes levied upon the taxable property in such urban renewal area must be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies. Unless and until the total municipal sales tax collections in an urban renewal area exceed the base year municipal sales tax collections in such urban renewal area, as provided in subsection (9)(a)(I) of this section, all such sales tax collections must be paid into the funds of the municipality. When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property or the total municipal sales tax collections, or both, in such urban renewal area must be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies, and all money remaining in the special fund established pursuant to this subsection (9)(a)(II) that has not previously been rebated and that originated as property tax increment generated based on the mill levy of a taxing body, other than the municipality, within the boundaries of the urban renewal area must be repaid to each taxing body based on the pro rata share of the prior year's property tax increment attributable to each taxing body's current mill levy in which property taxes were divided pursuant to this subsection (9). Any money remaining in the special fund not generated by property tax increment is excluded from any such repayment requirement. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any additional revenues resulting because the voters have authorized the municipality, county, special district, or school district to retain and spend said revenues pursuant to section 20 (7)(d) of article X of the state constitution subsequent to the creation of the special fund pursuant to this subsection (9)(a)(II) or as a result of an increase in the property tax mill levy approved by the voters of the municipality, county, special district, or school district subsequent to the creation of the special fund, to the extent the total mill levy of the municipality, county, special district, or school district exceeds the respective mill levy in effect at the time of approval or substantial modification of the urban renewal plan, shall not be pledged by an authority for the payment of any bonds of, any loans or advances to, or any indebtedness incurred by the authority without the consent of the relevant municipality, county, special district, or school district. To the extent the authority has received the notification specified in this subsection (9)(a)(II), such additional revenues shall then be promptly repaid by the authority to the municipality or other taxing entity. The authority shall be notified of the amount of additional revenues and the calculations used in computing the amount by the applicable municipality or other taxing entity prior to making repayment and, in any event, not later than February 1 in each fiscal year following the year in which a voter-approved revenue increase has taken effect. The authority and municipality or any other taxing entity may negotiate for the purpose of entering into an agreement on the issues of the amount of repayment, the mechanics of how repayment of the additional revenues will be accomplished, a method for resolving disputes regarding the amount of repayment, and whether the municipality or taxing entity will waive the repayment requirement, singularly or in combination, and may enter into an intergovernmental agreement regarding any of these issues.    In calculating and making payments as described in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), the county treasurer may offset the authority's pro rata portion of any property taxes that are paid to the authority under the terms of subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a) and that are subsequently refunded to the taxpayer against any subsequent payments due to the authority for the urban renewal project. The authority shall make adequate provision for the return of overpayments in the event that there are not sufficient property taxes due to the authority to offset the authority's pro rata portion of the refunds. The authority may establish a reserve fund for this purpose or enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the municipal governing body in which the municipality assumes responsibility for the return of the overpayments. The provisions of this subparagraph (III) shall not apply to a city and county.       The portion of taxes described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (9) may be irrevocably pledged by the authority for the payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness. This irrevocable pledge shall not extend to any taxes that are placed in a reserve fund to be returned to the county for refunds of overpayments by taxpayers; except that this limitation on the extension of the irrevocable pledge shall not apply to a city and county.    As used in this subsection (9), the word “taxes” shall include, without limitation, all levies authorized to be made on an ad valorem basis upon real and personal property or municipal sales taxes; but nothing in this subsection (9) shall be construed to require any public body to levy taxes.    In the case of urban renewal areas, including single- and multiple-family residences, school districts which include all or any part of such urban renewal area shall be permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in an urban renewal plan of the provision provided for by this subsection (9).    In the event there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in any county including all or part of the urban renewal area subject to division of valuation for assessment under paragraph (a) of this subsection (9) or a change in the sales tax percentage levied in any municipality including all or part of the urban renewal area subject to division of sales taxes under paragraph (a) of this subsection (9), the portions of valuations for assessment or sales taxes under both subparagraphs (I) and (II) of said paragraph (a) shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with such reassessment or change.    Notwithstanding the twenty-five-year period of limitation set forth in paragraph (a) of this subsection (9), any urban renewal plan, as originally approved or as later modified pursuant to this part 1, may contain a provision that the municipal sales taxes collected in an urban renewal area each year or the municipal portion of taxes levied upon taxable property within such area, or both such taxes, may be allocated as described in this subsection (9) for a period in excess of twenty-five years after the effective date of the adoption of such provision if the existing bonds are in default or about to go into default; except that such taxes shall not be allocated after all bonds of the authority issued pursuant to such plan including loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, and interest thereon, and any premiums due in connection therewith have been paid.    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if one or more of the conditions specified in subparagraph (II), or all of the conditions specified in subparagraph (III), of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section have been satisfied such that agricultural land is included within an urban renewal area, the county assessor shall value the agricultural land at its fair market value in making the calculation of the taxes to be paid to the public bodies pursuant to subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (9) solely for the purpose of determining the tax increment available pursuant to subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (9). Nothing in this section shall affect the actual classification, or require reclassification, of agricultural land for property tax purposes, and nothing in this section shall affect the taxes actually to be paid to the public bodies pursuant to subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (9), which shall continue to be based on the agricultural classification of such land unless and until it has been reclassified in the normal course of the assessment process.    The manner and methods by which the requirements of this subsection (9) are to be implemented by county assessors shall be contained in such manuals, appraisal procedures, and instructions, as applicable, that the property tax administrator is authorized to prepare and publish pursuant to section 39-2-109 (1)(e), C.R.S.    Within the twelve-month period prior to the effective date of the approval or modification of the urban renewal plan requiring the allocation of moneys to the authority pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (9), the municipality, county, special district, or school district is entitled to the reimbursement of any moneys that such municipality, county, special district, or school district pays to, contributes to, or invests in the authority for the project. The reimbursement is to be paid from the special fund of the authority established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (9). (9.5)   of subsection (9) of this section. The agreement must address, without limitation, estimated impacts of the urban renewal plan on county or district services associated solely with the urban renewal plan. The agreement may be entered into separately among the authority and each such taxing entity, or through a joint agreement among the authority and any taxing entity that has chosen to enter that agreement. Any such shared incremental tax revenues governed by any agreement are limited to all or any portion of the incremental revenue generated by the taxes levied upon taxable property by the taxing entity within the area covered by the urban renewal plan in addition to any incremental sales tax revenues generated within the area covered by the urban renewal plan by the imposition of the sales tax of the municipality and, at the option of any other taxing entity levying a sales tax in the area covered by the urban renewal plan, any incremental sales tax revenues of such other taxing entity that are included within the agreement.    The agreement described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (9.5) may provide for a waiver of any provision of this part 1 that provides for notice to the taxing entity, requires any filing with or by the taxing entity, requires or permits consent from the taxing entity, or provides any enforcement right to the taxing entity.    If, after a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of notice or such longer or shorter period as the authority and any taxing entity may agree, there is no agreement between the authority and any taxing entity as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (9.5), the authority and any applicable taxing entity are subject to the provisions and limitations of paragraph (d) of this subsection (9.5).      In an absence of an agreement between the authority and any taxing entity as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (9.5), the parties must submit to mediation on the issue of appropriate sharing of incremental property tax revenues and urban renewal project costs among the authority and any such taxing entities whose incremental property tax revenues will be allocated pursuant to an urban renewal plan and with whom an intergovernmental agreement with the authority has not been reached. (d) (I) In an absence of an agreement between the authority and any taxing entity as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (9.5), the parties must submit to mediation on the issue of appropriate sharing of incremental property tax revenues and urban renewal project costs among the authority and any such taxing entities whose incremental property tax revenues will be allocated pursuant to an urban renewal plan and with whom an intergovernmental agreement with the authority has not been reached.    The mediation required by subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (d) must be conducted by a mediator who has been jointly selected by the parties; except that, if the parties are unable to agree on the selection of a mediator, then the authority shall select one mediator, the other parties shall select a second mediator, and these two mediators shall then select a third mediator. In such circumstances, the mediation will be jointly conducted by the three mediators. Unless all parties otherwise agree, any mediator selected pursuant to this paragraph (d) must be an attorney licensed in the state for at least ten years and must be experienced in both land use and administrative law. Payment of the fees and costs for the mediation must be split equally between or among the parties.    In making a determination of the appropriate sharing, the mediator must consider the nature of the project, the nature and relative size of the revenue and other benefits that are expected to accrue to the municipality and other taxing entities as a result of the project, any legal limitations on the use of revenues belonging to the authority or any taxing entity, and any capital or operating costs that are expected to result from the project. Within ninety days, the mediator must issue his or her findings of fact as to the appropriate sharing of costs and incremental property tax revenues, and shall promptly transmit such information to the parties. With respect to the use of incremental property tax revenues of each other taxing entity, following the issuance of findings by the mediator, the governing body of the municipality shall:   Incorporate the mediator's findings on the use of incremental property tax revenues of any taxing body into the urban renewal plan and proceed to adopt the plan;    Amend the urban renewal plan to delete authorization of the use of the incremental property tax revenues of any taxing body with whom an agreement has not been reached; or    Direct the authority to either incorporate the mediator's findings into one or more intergovernmental agreements with other taxing entities or to enter into new negotiations with one or more taxing entities and to enter into one or more intergovernmental agreements with such taxing entities that incorporate such new or different provisions concerning the sharing of costs and incremental property tax revenues with which the parties are in agreement.          Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no incremental property tax revenues may be allocated and paid into the special fund of the authority in accordance with subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section unless the municipality or the authority has satisfied the requirements of this subsection (9.5).    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a city and county is not required to reach an agreement with a county satisfying the requirements of this subsection (9.5).    For purposes of this subsection (9.5), “taxing entity” means any county, special district, or other public body that levies an ad valorem property tax on property within the urban renewal area subject to a tax allocation provision. (9.6)   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the governing body of the municipality, as applicable, may provide in an urban renewal plan that the valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources located within the urban renewal area shall not be subject to the division that is otherwise required by subsection (9)(a) of this section. In such circumstances, the taxes levied on the valuation will be distributed to the public bodies as if the urban renewal plan was not in effect.    For purposes of this subsection (9.6):   “Mineral resources” has the same meaning as specified in section 36-1-100.3 (3).    “Valuation attributable to the extraction of mineral resources” includes:   The value of oil and gas leaseholds and land and subsurface oil and gas well equipment that is valued for assessment purposes as real property under sections 39-7-102 and 39-7-103; and    Surface oil and gas well equipment and submersible pumps and sucker rods located on oil and gas leaseholds and land that is valued for assessment purposes as personal property under section 39-7-103. (9.7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law:   Nothing in subsection (9.5) of this section, as added by House Bill 15-1348, enacted in 2015, and as amended by Senate Bill 16-177, enacted in 2016, is intended to impair, jeopardize, or put at risk any existing bonds, investments, loans, contracts, or financial obligations of an urban renewal authority outstanding as of December 31, 2015, or the pledge of pledged revenues or assets to the payment thereof that occurred on or before December 31, 2015.    The requirements of section 31-25-104 (2)(a), (2)(b), and (2.5), section 31-25-115 (1.5), the introductory portion of subsection (9)(a) of this section, subsections (9)(a)(II), (9)(i), and (9.5) of this section, as added by House Bill 15-1348, enacted in 2015, and as amended by Senate Bill 16-177, enacted in 2016, and the requirements of subsections (7) and (7.5) of this section as amended by Senate Bill 17-279, enacted in 2017, and the requirements of subsection (9)(a)(II) of this section as amended by Senate Bill 18-248, enacted in 2018, apply to municipalities, urban renewal authorities, and any urban renewal plans created on or after January 1, 2016, and to any substantial modification of any urban renewal plan where the modification is approved on or after January 1, 2016.                      The municipality in which an urban renewal authority has been established pursuant to the provisions of this part 1 shall timely notify the assessor of the county in which such authority has been established when:   An urban renewal plan or a substantial modification of such plan has been approved that contains the provision referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section or a substantial modification of the plan adds land to the plan, which plan contains the provision referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section;    Any outstanding obligation incurred by such authority pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section has been paid off; and    The purposes of such authority have otherwise been achieved.       The governing body or the authority may enter into an agreement with any taxing entity within the boundaries of which property taxes collected as a result of the taxing entity's levy, or any portion of the levy, will be subject to allocation pursuant to subsection (9) of this section. The agreement may provide for the allocation of responsibility among the parties to the agreement for payment of the costs of any additional county infrastructure or services necessary to offset the impacts of an urban renewal project and for the sharing of revenues. Except with the consent of the governing body or the authority, any such shared revenues shall be limited to all or any portion of the taxes levied upon taxable property within the urban renewal area by the taxing entity. The agreement may provide for a waiver of any provision of this part 1 that provides for notice to the taxing entity, requires any filing with or by the taxing entity, requires or permits consent from the taxing entity, or provides any enforcement right to the taxing entity.      of subsection (3.5) and paragraph (h) of subsection (4) of this section by means of the arbitration process established by this subsection (12) where:   Property located within such county is included within an urban renewal plan;    The county has provided information requested pursuant to subsection (3.7) of this section; and    The county has appeared at a public hearing held pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section and presented evidence at such hearing that development within the urban renewal area will create a need for additional county infrastructure and services; except that the requirements of this subparagraph (III) shall not apply in the case of a county that did not receive an urban renewal plan, a substantial modification to the plan, or an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section.         A county objecting under the provisions of this section to an urban renewal plan approved under subsection (4) of this section that received on a timely basis an urban renewal plan, a substantial modification to the plan, or an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section shall file written notice of the objection with the authority as well as the governing body that has approved the plan within fifteen days of the date of the approval of the plan. A county objecting under the provisions of this section to an urban renewal plan approved under subsection (4) of this section that did not receive on a timely basis an urban renewal plan, a substantial modification to the plan, or an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section shall file written notice of the objection with the authority as well as the governing body that has approved the plan within thirty days of the date of the approval of the plan or within five days of the date of the county's receipt of the plan, whichever date is later. The notice of objection shall include a statement of the grounds upon which the county asserts that the authority or the governing body has failed to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (III) and (IV) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) and paragraph (h) of subsection (4) of this section. The notice of objection shall also include the name of one attorney who has been licensed for a minimum of ten years in the state of Colorado, who is experienced in administrative and land use law, and who the board of county commissioners of the county believes to be qualified to serve as a member of the panel of arbitrators charged with resolving the county's objections in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (12). (b) (I) A county objecting under the provisions of this section to an urban renewal plan approved under subsection (4) of this section that received on a timely basis an urban renewal plan, a substantial modification to the plan, or an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section shall file written notice of the objection with the authority as well as the governing body that has approved the plan within fifteen days of the date of the approval of the plan. A county objecting under the provisions of this section to an urban renewal plan approved under subsection (4) of this section that did not receive on a timely basis an urban renewal plan, a substantial modification to the plan, or an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section shall file written notice of the objection with the authority as well as the governing body that has approved the plan within thirty days of the date of the approval of the plan or within five days of the date of the county's receipt of the plan, whichever date is later. The notice of objection shall include a statement of the grounds upon which the county asserts that the authority or the governing body has failed to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (III) and (IV) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) and paragraph (h) of subsection (4) of this section. The notice of objection shall also include the name of one attorney who has been licensed for a minimum of ten years in the state of Colorado, who is experienced in administrative and land use law, and who the board of county commissioners of the county believes to be qualified to serve as a member of the panel of arbitrators charged with resolving the county's objections in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (12).    Within twenty days of receipt of the notice of objection, the governing body shall submit to the county the name of one additional person to serve as a member of the panel of arbitrators, which person shall also satisfy the requirements specified in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b). Within twenty days of such submission, the two members of the arbitration panel selected by the county and the governing body shall jointly select an additional person to serve as the third and final member of the panel of arbitrators, which person shall also satisfy the requirements specified in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b). The panel of three arbitrators selected pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be charged with resolving the county's objections in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (12). Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph (b), the county, governing body, and authority may agree upon a single arbitrator to resolve the county's objections.    If the county, governing body, and authority have not reached a written agreement resolving the county's objections within thirty days after the receipt by the governing body of the notice specified in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b), the objections specified in the notice shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (12).       The arbitration hearing, if any, shall commence within sixty days after the receipt by the governing body of the notice of objection. The parties to the arbitration shall be the county, governing body, and authority. At the arbitration hearing, the governing body or the authority, as applicable, shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it submitted the urban renewal plan, a substantial modification to the plan, and an urban renewal impact report, as applicable, to the county pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section and that it did not abuse its discretion in preparing the estimate or statement provided to the county pursuant to subparagraphs (III) and (IV) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3.5) of this section and that the governing body did not abuse its discretion in connection with the findings it has made under paragraph (h) of subsection (4) of this section. The decision of the arbitrators shall be based upon the objections contained in the notice filed pursuant to subparagraph (I) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (12) and upon the record of the hearing held pursuant to subsection (3) of this section. In rendering a decision, the arbitrators shall take into consideration the goals and objectives of the urban renewal plan, information that has been submitted by the county as contained in the record of the hearing on the urban renewal plan and the impact report provided to the county pursuant to subsection (3.5) of this section, the reasonableness of the county's objections contained in the notice, the extent to which the urban renewal project will improve existing county infrastructure, the extent to which tax increment revenues, if any, to be generated by development within the urban renewal area and collected by the authority pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section may reasonably be expected to defray the cost of the additional infrastructure and services requested by the county, and the debt service requirements of the authority. The arbitration hearing shall be concluded not later than seven days after its commencement, and the decision of the arbitrators shall be rendered not later than thirty days after the conclusion of the hearing. The order of the arbitrators shall be limited to either approving the urban renewal plan or, upon a finding of abuse of discretion, remanding the plan to the governing body for reconsideration of the county's objections. The order shall be final and binding on the parties and shall not be subject to judicial review except to enforce the order or to determine whether the order was procured by corruption, fraud, or other similar wrongdoing.    Fifty percent of the necessary fees and necessary expenses of any arbitration conducted pursuant to this subsection (12), excluding all fees and expenses incurred by either party in the preparation or presentation of its case, shall be borne by the county, and fifty percent of such fees and expenses shall be borne by the governing body or the authority.    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the provisions of this subsection (12) shall not apply to any urban renewal plan in which less than ten percent of the area identified in such plan:   Has been classified as agricultural land for purposes of the levying and collection of property tax pursuant to section 39-1-103, C.R.S., at any time during the three-year period prior to the date of adoption of the plan; and    Is currently identified for agricultural uses in a master plan adopted by the municipality pursuant to section 31-23-206 and has been so identified for more than one year prior to the date of adoption of the plan.       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the arbitration process established in this subsection (12) shall be the exclusive remedy available to a county for contesting the sufficiency of compliance by a governing body or an authority with the requirements of this section.       Not later than thirty days after the municipality has provided the county assessor the notice required by paragraph   of subsection (10) of this section, the county assessor may provide written notice to the municipality if the assessor believes that agricultural land has been improperly included in the urban renewal area in violation of subparagraph (II) or (III) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section. If the notice is not delivered within the thirty-day period, the inclusion of the land in the urban renewal area as described in the urban renewal plan shall be incontestable in any suit or proceeding notwithstanding the presence of any cause. If the assessor provides notice to the municipality within the thirty-day period, the municipality may file an action in state district court exercising jurisdiction over the county in which the land is located for an order determining whether the inclusion of the land in the urban renewal area is consistent with one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (II) or (III) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section and shall have an additional thirty days from the date it receives the notice in which to file such action. If the municipality fails to file such an action within the additional thirty-day period, the agricultural land shall not become part of the urban renewal area.        History. Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1167, § 1, effective July 1; (9) added, p. 1276, § 1, effective July 16. L. 81: (9)(a), (9)(c), and (9)(e) amended, p. 1516, § 1, effective July 1. L. 93: (9)(f) added, p. 435, § 1, effective April 19; (3.5) added, p. 1255, § 5, effective July 1. L. 99: (1), (3), and (4) amended and (10) added, p. 530, § 3, effective May 3. L. 2004: (3) amended and (4.5) added, p. 1746, § 5, effective June 4. L. 2005: (3.5) and (9)(a)(II) amended and (3.7), (4)(h), (11), and (12) added, pp. 1259, 1263, §§ 1, 2, effective June 3. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 1004, § 1, effective September 1. L. 2008: (1)(b) amended, p. 1912, § 121, effective August 5; (9)(a)(III) added and (9)(b) amended, p. 1245, §§ 1, 2, effective August 5. L. 2010: (1)(c), IP(3.5)(a), (9)(a)(II), (10)(a), and (11) amended and (1)(d), (3.5)(c), (9)(g), (9)(h), and (13) added, (HB 10-1107), ch. 89, pp. 299, 302, 303, §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, effective June 1; (11) amended,(HB 10-1422), ch. 419, p. 2127, § 193, effective August 11. L. 2013: (9)(a)(I) amended,(HB 13-1295), ch. 314, p. 1656, § 12, effective July 1, 2014. L. 2015: IP(9)(a) and (9)(a)(II) amended and (9)(i) and (9.5) added,(HB 15-1348), ch. 261, p. 986, § 2, effective August 5. L. 2016: (9.5) amended and (9.7) added,(SB 16-177), ch. 178, p. 611, § 1, effective May 18. L. 2017: (7) and (9.7) amended and (7.5) added,(SB 17-279), ch. 249, p. 1046, § 1, effective May 25; (9.6) added,(HB 17-1016), ch. 20, p. 65, § 1, effective August 9. L. 2018: (9)(a)(II) and (9.7)(b) amended,(SB 18-248), ch. 339, p. 2027, § 1, effective May 30. L. 2019: (9)(a)(I) amended, (HB-1240), ch. 264, p. 2503, § 11, effective June 1; (1)(b) amended,(HB 19-1084), ch. 47, p. 158, § 1, effective September 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 31-25-107 as it existed prior to 1975.   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in the 2013 act amending subsection (9)(a)(I), see section 1 of chapter 314, Session Laws of Colorado 2013.   ANNOTATION   Subsection (9) does not violate § 1 of art. XI, Colo. Const. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1980).   Subsection (3.5), which requires submission of urban renewal plan to the board of county commissioners, does not grant the county authority to assume an advisory role, nor does it grant authority to take any action, to participate in the planning process, or to implement the plan in any way other than that granted to the general public to receive notice and participate in a public hearing. Boulder County Bd. of Comm'rs v. City of Broomfield, 7 P.3d 1033 (Colo. App. 1999).   Project's commencement requires concurrence. The local governing body must concur with an urban renewal authority's proposed project before the project can be commenced. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1980).   Statutory tax-allocation financing scheme provided in section is not improper delegation of power to the authority to supervise or interfere with the levying and collection of taxes. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1980).   Structure of tax allocation. The tax allocation structure provided by subsection (9)(e) has been carefully drafted so that there is a direct relationship between the increased valuation of property within the project area, and thus, increased ad valorem tax revenues, and the project financed by the bond issue. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1980).   City of Denver had standing to challenge validity of subsection (9). Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1980).   Applicability of Sherman Antitrust Act to urban renewal plans. Actions of city and related parties involved in the adoption of an urban renewal plan were immune from liability under the Sherman Antitrust Act since the actions were taken pursuant to clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy and there was no evidence of bribery or other illegal activity with respect to the adoption or implementation of the plan. Oberndorf v. City & County of Denver, 696 F. Supp. 552 (D. Colo. 1988 ), aff'd, 900 F.2d 1434 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 845, 111 S. Ct. 129, 112 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1990).   Existence of incidental public purpose does not prevent a court from finding bad faith and invalidating determination that a particular acquisition is necessary, if the primary purpose for the condemnation is to advance private interests. Denver W. Metro. District v. Geudner, 786 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1989); Block 173 Assocs. v. Denver, 797 P.2d 771 (Colo. App. 1990), aff'd, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991).   A finding of compliance with this section does not foreclose claims of bad faith and conspiracy to effect an unconstitutional taking of property. Block 173 Assocs. v. Denver, 797 P.2d 771 (Colo. App. 1990), aff'd, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991).   Requirement that the city council make a finding that the area in question is blighted or a slum is a prerequisite to adoption of an urban renewal plan but fact that three blocks dedicated to Centerstone were not blighted did not prevent those blocks from being included in urban renewal plan. City & County of Denver v. Block 173, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991).   Town council's submission of proposed urban renewal plan to electorate did not excuse town council, as the governing body, from complying with statute's requirement that it hold public hearing on plan and to make specific findings before it approved plan. E. Grand Co. Sch. Dist. 2 v. Winter Park, 739 P.2d 862 (Colo. App. 1987).   Remand necessary so trial court can independently examine the public purpose of the condemnation based on the record of proceedings before urban renewal authority and, without either deferring to the authority's blight determination or considering bad faith, make findings from the existing record reflecting that examination. Sheridan Redev. Agency v. Knightsbridge Land Co., 166 P.3d 259 (Colo. App. 2007).   Res judicata does not apply to bar state action where state and federal claims were based on different claims for relief, and state claims were not truly “available to the parties” in the prior federal action because state claims could only have been asserted in federal court as pendent to federal claims for relief, and federal claim was dismissed on motion for summary judgment, requiring dismissal of pendent state claims. City & County of Denver v. Block 173, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991).   Collateral estoppel. Findings of federal district court insufficient to support summary judgment on state claims where identity of issues necessary to invoke collateral estoppel was absent between issues actually and necessarily decided by the federal district court and those necessary to preclude summary judgment on landowner's “bad faith” claims in state court. City & County of Denver v. Block 173, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991).   School district, board of education, and board of county commissioners had standing to challenge enactment of urban renewal plan, where implementation of tax increment financing (TIF) could have caused plaintiffs to lose property tax revenues which would otherwise have been available to them. County had authority to sue to protect its interest in property taxes, and school district was entitled to participate in advisory capacity with respect to implementation of TIF. E. Grand Co. Sch. Dist. 2 v. Winter Park, 739 P.2d 862 (Colo. App. 1987).   Subject real property is no longer subject to municipality's 1981 blight determination, because the statutory procedures for removing blight were followed. The urban renewal authority disposed of the quarry lake property according to the terms of state's urban renewal law and certified the uses to which the lake was devoted comported with the urban renewal plan. After duly disposing of the lake property, certifying that the property was being used in accordance with the urban renewal plan, and having notice at all relevant times of the developer's efforts to incorporate the lake into its office park, the urban renewal authority cannot now claim that the lake has never been developed in accordance with the urban renewal plan. On the contrary, the quarry lake has been developed in accordance with the procedures laid out in the state's urban renewal law and, thus, can no longer be considered “blighted” under the municipality's 1981 blight determination. Arvada Urban Renewal Auth. v. Columbine Prof'l Plaza Ass'n, 85 P.3d 1066 (Colo. 2004).   Urban renewal authority lacks statutory authority to condemn subject parcel of real property that is no longer subject to blight determination. Neither lake parcel nor Arvada marketplace parcel is subject to municipality's 1981 blight finding. Once the purpose of eliminating or preventing the spread of blight has been achieved, the urban renewal authority may no longer rely on a municipality's initial blight determination to condemn property because it can no longer exercise its condemnation powers in furtherance of a valid public purpose. Thus, the statutory basis for the urban renewal authority's power to condemn, the elimination of blight, is no longer present. Accordingly, where blight has been eliminated from a parcel that lies within an urban renewal area, an urban renewal authority no longer has any statutory basis to exercise its condemnation power over or for the benefit of that parcel. Arvada Urban Renewal Auth. v. Columbine Prof'l Plaza Ass'n, 85 P.3d 1066 (Colo. 2004).   Section does not require urban renewal authority to afford landowners any opportunity to redevelop their own land beyond participating in the developer selection process. Here, there is no basis for disturbing the trial court's extensive findings that respondents participated in a fundamentally fair developer selection process. Sheridan Redev. Agency v. Knightsbridge Land Co., 166 P.3d 259 (Colo. App. 2007).   Because TIF is a formula created by subsection (9)(a) and adopted by a city council in a renewal plan, court's review of the statute and renewal plan involves legal questions subject to de novo review. Northglenn Urban Renewal Auth. v. Reyes, 2013 COA 24 , 300 P.3d 984.   Trial court erred in determining assessor had discretion to calculate revenue from TIF by removing property for which TIF was suspended from the total assessed value but including the suspended property in the base value. Assessor's calculation frustrates the legislative intent of the statute because it fails to give effect to the statutory requirement in subsection (9)(a)(II) that the portion of property tax in excess of the base amount be allocated to the authority. A calculation that creates an imbalance in an authority's TIF by including property in the base value while removing the same property from the new assessed value impedes the goals of addressing and financing renewal of blighted areas. Northglenn Urban Renewal Auth. v. Reyes, 2013 COA 24 , 300 P.3d 984.   Trial court correctly concluded that the twenty-five year period specified in subsection (9)(a) did not increase the TIF provision in the renewal plan for those properties added after the effective date of the plan. Assessor and board of county commissioners correctly argue that the plain language of the statute and the renewal plan requires that the TIF period for all properties terminate in 2017, a date twenty-five years from the effective date of the original TIF provision, or 1992. Because the TIF provision was adopted in 1992 and no new TIF provision was adopted in 2004 or 2008 when new property was added to the urban renewal area, the twenty-five year period for the added property began in 1992. Northglenn Urban Renewal Auth. v. Reyes, 2013 COA 24 , 300 P.3d 984.   Arbitration under subsection (12) is not county's exclusive remedy for all challenges to an urban renewal plan. The arbitration process is a county's exclusive remedy only with respect to challenges related to subsections (3.5)(a)(III), (IV), and (4)(b). Because the county assessor's interpretation of subsection (9)(a) is unrelated to compliance with subsections (3.5)(a)(III), (IV), and (4)(b), county's failure to arbitrate TIF issue does not bar assessor's defense to claims city asserted against him. City of Aurora v. Scott, 2017 COA 24 , 410 P.3d 720.   Assessor's defense to city's claims is not barred by issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, or equitable estoppel. First, the assessor's claim is not precluded by issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) because the meaning of the statute and the question of whether the city had the power to delay the start of the TIF clock was not decided during public hearings. Nor is the assessor's defense barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) because he was not party to or in privity with a party to the public hearings in which the plans were approved. Finally the assessor's defense is not barred by equitable estoppel because the city could not have reasonably relied on the assessor's or the county's inaction in a public hearing where the law grants them no role. Neither the assessor nor the county played any role in the public approval process. City of Aurora v. Scott, 2017 COA 24 , 410 P.3d 720.   A municipality's power to control the timing of an urban renewal plan under subsection (8) does not encompass the power of the municipality to write its own TIF timeline. The Urban Renewal Law (URL) does not permit a municipality to alter or evade the twenty-five year time limitation on TIF provisions by denominating parts of an urban renewal plan “effective” on a date years after the plan was actually approved. City of Aurora v. Scott, 2017 COA 24 , 410 P.3d 720.   The twenty-five year period begins when the TIF provision is adopted. A TIF provision is adopted on the date the plan or modification containing such a provision was approved. By tying the TIF period to the TIF provisions rather than the plan, the legislature has allowed for TIF provisions to run from the date a provision was approved, even if it was added to a plan later. Where there is no subsequent modification of the plan or a modification does not include a new TIF provision, the TIF provision is “adopted” when the original plan was approved. City of Aurora v. Scott, 2017 COA 24 , 410 P.3d 720.   Subsection (9)(a)(I) sets the date for the base valuation and subsection (9)(a)(II) requires taxes in excess of the base valuation to be allocated to the urban renewal fund. When read together these provisions require that TIF allocations begin on the effective date of approval of the urban renewal plan or modification containing the TIF provision. The common understanding of the phrase “effective date of adoption of such a provision” in subsection (9)(a) is the date on which a provision becomes enforceable or operational through a municipality's act of formally sanctioning or agreeing to the provision. To permit a city to define the “effective date of adoption of a [TIF] provision” would effectively allow the city to circumvent the statutory time limit. Allowing a city to define the “effective date of adoption” as any convenient date, regardless of when the provision was actually approved, would divorce the TIF timeline from the date of adoption and create a TIF limit of twenty-five years from any date chosen by the municipality. The statutory language does not support such a result. City of Aurora v. Scott, 2017 COA 24 , 410 P.3d 720.   Adopting an urban renewal plan is not a legislative act. Even if approving an urban renewal plan could be characterized as legislative, approving these plans would be beyond the city's powers because the plans conflict with the URL's TIF timeline. The public approval process includes notice and an opportunity to be heard for interested individuals, involves the application of existing standards to factors developed at a hearing, and affects specific individuals (as opposed to being generally applicable public policy). These are all factors that suggest a quasi-judicial decision. Moreover, even if approving an urban renewal plan could be characterized as legislative, approving these plans would be beyond the city's powers because the plan conflicts with the URL's TIF timeline. If a local ordinance conflicts with a state law in a matter of mixed state and local concern, the ordinance is superseded by state statute. The city plans' TIF provisions conflict with URL time limits. Therefore, even if the city's acts were legislative, they would nevertheless be invalid. City of Aurora v. Scott, 2017 COA 24 , 410 P.3d 720.   Applied in Thornton Dev. Auth. v. Upah, 640 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Colo. 1986 ).