Local Politics
  1. Home
  2. US
  3. Colorado
  4. Colorado Springs
  5. Issues

Old Colorado City DDA Dissolution

At a glance

  • What: Ordinance No. 26-48 dissolving the Old Colorado City Downtown Development Authority (OCC DDA), which voters in the district created at a 2024 election.
  • Outcome: Approved on first reading 5-4 on August 25, 2026; postponed on September 8 so residents could comment; finally passed 5-4 on September 22, 2026.
  • Sponsors: Councilmember Williams (District 3) and Councilmember Rainey (District 6) with the Council Administrator; moved by Williams, seconded by Rainey.
  • Why it matters: The fight was over whether a DDA, with tax increment financing and a mill levy, is the right tool for Old Colorado City, or whether a Business Improvement District (BID) or Public Improvement Fee (PIF) would serve better.

Positions

  • Supporters (4 residents spoke): favored dissolution. One said he never received a ballot.
  • Opponents: 11 or more speakers, including the OCC DDA chair Adam Stephan and three DDA members, opposed it. They wanted the chance to put the mill levy to voters. Another speaker asked that residents be better informed on these matters.
  • Williams: does not believe a DDA is the right tool for Old Colorado City; will keep working toward the right answer and asked what other tools exist.
  • Crow-Iverson: concerned about the 2024 election statistics, incorrect boundaries and the failure of the mill levy in the first election.
  • Henjum: saw no urgency, wanted the mill levy put to a vote, voted no.
  • Donelson: the election was certified and valid; the DDA now volunteers to return to voters for a mill levy and if that fails or is legally impermissible he would support dissolution. Two DDAs in one city is reasonable because Old Colorado City was once its own municipality. Objected that a memo questioning the election went only to one side. Voted no.
  • Gold: low turnout does not invalidate an election; more time needed; voted no.
  • Leinweber: questioned staff on legal defects, remaining avenues to contest the 2024 election, whether the DDA's pledge to dissolve if the levy fails is binding, and whether a Plan of Development could be approved with the TIF start date deferred. Voted no.
  • Trevor Gloss (Senior Attorney): no timely challenge to the 2024 election was made; the election approved the DDA by the qualified electors; he knew of no remaining avenue to contest it; a DDA pledge to dissolve if the levy fails would be voluntary unless there is a binding agreement with the City; the TIF start date could be delayed by amending the Plan of Development. The City did not run the election; Spencer Fane did, and ballots went to qualified electors.
  • Kevin Walker (Planning Director): explained differences between a DDA and a BID, the difference for Colorado Avenue properties being age of structures and mix of uses; Planning could help with boundary mapping and a BID with a metropolitan district overlay.
  • Jariah Walker (Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Authority executive director): reviewed data showing about 425 businesses, 350 commercial properties and 700 registered voters in the district; roughly 85 percent of ballots came from a concentrated four-block area; 216 ballots were returned out of 830 issued; several owners said they received no ballot. He said the urban renewal authority and other funders favored a BID and would help fund one if the mill levy failed again.
  • Rich Mulledy (Public Works Director): about $2.1 million invested in Old Colorado City parking improvements over five years, including a failing retaining wall of about $1.2 million; the Colorado Avenue project is $14.5 million (Phase 1 under way); Route 3 is subsidized for free rides from downtown to Manitou Springs; Midland Trail improvements are planned within a year; 2C has put about $2 million into roadway and sidewalk work.
  • Bob Gardner (attorney for the OCC DDA): defended the certified election, said ballots go to qualified electors not parcels, and that removing the seventeen questioned parcels would not change the result. He said 128 ballots went to an address used by Westside Cares, which is legally permitted for people with no fixed address, and that only six of those ballots were returned. He said a BID would need assessments too high to be workable, and warned that the tools of the urban renewal authority (blight designation, eminent domain) differ from those of a DDA.

Vote

Motion by Williams, seconded by Rainey, that Ordinance No. 26-48 be finally passed. Passed 5-4.

  • Aye (5): Casey, Crow-Iverson, Rainey, Risley, Williams.
  • No (4): Donelson, Gold, Henjum, Leinweber.

First introduction (July 13 and 14, 2026)

  • July 13 work session (2026-07-13 - City Council Work Session): Emily Evans introduced the dissolution ordinance and the companion boundary correction (Ordinance file 26-262, removing seventeen properties). Williams gave the history and said the mill levy did not pass. Trevor Gloss said that if the dissolution passes the boundary change is withdrawn. Donelson was reluctant to dissolve a board created by voters, said the Plan of Development was about six months from completion with no risk of debt, and asked if the DDA would agree not to incur debt before Council's vote. Allison Daniell, DDA Vice Chair, said the DDA does not intend to; attorney Laura Gardner said that would need a board vote. Ryan Tefertiller described the Plan of Development process.
  • July 14 regular meeting (2026-07-14 - City Council): Williams said the issue is not personal and a DDA is not the right tool here. Daniell reviewed the DDA's history, consultant quotes and plans, why a DDA was chosen over a BID, and asked for more time. Council President Crow-Iverson asked the dollar difference between a DDA and a BID; Gardner said they had not had time to get it and had only three days notice. Board member Ryan Lloyd said the chair, Stepan, had asked Bob Gardner's firm to represent the DDA when he learned it might be dissolved. Williams said El Paso County should not be collecting tax increment financing until a Plan of Development is approved; Gloss said the County had collected it incorrectly and Finance was fixing it. Williams said the item had to move now because a submitted Plan of Development could allow debt.
  • Motion by Leinweber, seconded by Henjum, to postpone the dissolution ordinance to August 25: passed 5-4 (Aye: Donelson, Gold, Henjum, Leinweber, Rainey Jr.; No: Casey, Crow-Iverson, Risley, Williams).
  • Boundary correction ordinance: Rainey said seventeen properties were erroneously captured, only two other US cities have two DDAs, and voters acted on misleading information. Motion by Donelson, seconded by Risley, to approve on first reading: passed 8-1 (No: Rainey Jr.).
  • Source: July 13 work session minutes https://legistar2.granicus.com/coloradosprings/meetings/2026/7/2843_M_City_Council_Work_Session_26-07-13_Meeting_Minutes.pdf and July 14 minutes https://legistar2.granicus.com/coloradosprings/meetings/2026/7/2789_M_City_Council_26-07-14_Meeting_Minutes.pdf

Sources

Earlier readings

August 25 first reading

  • Emily Evans introduced the ordinance. Bob Gardner and DDA chair Stepan (spelled Stepan in the August and September 8 minutes) argued the DDA is a voter mandate and needs more time; Stepan cited administrative hurdles, the BID alternative, ballot and funding reality, and the "fair share" equity gap.
  • Public comment: five residents spoke for dissolution, about twenty against.
  • Jariah Walker explained DDA versus BID. Trevor Gloss said state statute has no way to shrink the boundaries other than the dissolution mechanism, and that a mill levy needs Council approval before going to registered electors; voters approved retaining any collected tax increment financing but Council must approve it in a plan of development. The City Clerk said the DDA would pay for any election.
  • Donelson (citizens voted for the DDA) and Gold (DDA needs more time) said they would vote no; Williams said a DDA is for development and redevelopment, the opposite of what residents want, and Rainey said a BID fits better and asked the Urban Renewal Authority to help. Leinweber disclosed a westside business outside the DDA and asked whether boundaries could shrink.
  • Motion by Williams, seconded by Rainey, approved on first reading 5-4. Aye: Casey, Crow-Iverson, Rainey Jr., Risley, Williams. No: Donelson, Gold, Henjum, Leinweber.

September 8 hearing

  • Henjum, Leinweber and Donelson asked for public comment on second reading; Crow-Iverson declined because the item was noticed without comment. Stepan said the 5 mill levy question would go to the November 2027 ballot, the DDA would redraw its boundaries and, if the levy fails, proceed with dissolution; debt would be forgiven in that case and a BID could not pay for an executive director.
  • Motion by Henjum, seconded by Donelson, to allow public comment on second reading: passed 6-3 (No: Casey, Crow-Iverson, Risley).
  • Motion by Williams, seconded by Casey, to postpone to September 22: passed 9-0. Council also amended the August 25 minutes at Williams' request to say the establishing ordinance appointed the initial five DDA board members.

Log

2026-09-22 - City Council

Ordinance 26-48 finally passed 5-4 after extended public comment and questions to staff and the DDA's attorney.

2026-09-08 - City Council

Public comment allowed on second reading (6-3); item postponed to September 22 (9-0).

2026-08-25 - City Council

First reading approved 5-4 after about 25 speakers.

2026-07-14 - City Council

Dissolution postponed to August 25 (5-4); boundary correction approved on first reading 8-1.

2026-07-13 - City Council Work Session

Dissolution and boundary ordinances introduced; questions on debt and the Plan of Development.

2026-06-08 - City Council Work Session

Closed executive session on legal advice from the City Attorney regarding the Old Colorado City DDA; at least two-thirds of Council agreed to hold it (electronically). No action recorded in open session. This was five weeks before the dissolution ordinance was introduced on July 13.