Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-03 EURA MINUTES• • • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY FEBRUARY 3, 1988 I. CALL TO ORDER. 9 F The Annual Meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to or- der at 5:30 P. M. by Chairman Robert Voth. Members present: Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton, Voth Hinson, Executive Director/Executive Secretary Members absent: Cole, VanDyke Alternate Member Daugherty Alternate Member Hanson Also present: Harold Stitt, Assistant to EURA Director Densel Ragland, Director of Engineering Services Penny Dietrich, Executive Director of EDDA Andy Mccown, City Manager II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 6, 1988 Chairman Voth stated that the Minutes of January 6, 1988 were to be considered for approval. Minnick moved: Mcintyre seconded: The Minutes of January 6, 1988 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton, Voth None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cole, VanDyke None The motion carried. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1988 Chairman Voth stated that officers of the Authority for the ensuing year are elected at the Annual Meeting, and opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Mcintyre nominated Mr. Robert J. Voth as Chairman for 1988, and Mrs. Ruth Cole for Vice-Chairman for 1988. Ms. Betty Keena seconded the nominations. Mr. Voth asked if there were further nominations. Mcintyre moved: Minnick seconded: Nominations be closed, and Mr. Voth and Mrs. Cole be elec- ted by acclamation . The motion carried. - 1 - IV. CONTRACTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES. Paul C. Benedetti Marlin D. Opperman Mr. Hinson stated that the Authority needs to consider contracts for legal services for 1988 with the legal counsel for the Authority . Mr. Benedetti has asked that his contract for 1987 be extended through 1988, at the hourly rates he and his assistant, Mr. Padilla, were paid in 1987. Mr. Hinson recommended that the Authority approve the extension of the contract at the 1987 hourly rates. Mcintyre moved: Keena seconded: AYES : NAYS: ABSENT: ABS1AIN: Minnick, None VanDyke, None The Urban Renewal Authority accept the proposal of Mr. Paul C. Benedetti to extend the contract for legal services pro- vided by Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Padilla through 1988 at the 1987 hourly rates . Totton, Voth, Keena, Mcintyre Cole The motion carried. Mr. Hinson discussed the letter from Mr. Marlin D. Opperman pertaining to a • 1988 contract for his firm. Mr . Opperman is requesting an increase in rates • for himself of $15/hour, and an increase in rates for his associates of $10/ hour. Mr. Hinson pointed out that Mr. Opperman has not requested an increase for services provided by his firm since 1985 . Mr. Hinson reviewed the ser- vices provided by Mr. Opperman to the Authority, and those cases which are yet to be determined in Court with which Mr. Opperman's firm is involved. Mr. Hinson recommended that the Authority approve Mr. Opperman's request for an hourly rate increase for members of his firm. Mcintyre moved: Keena seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority approve the 1988 contract with Opperman & Associates, P.C. as per Attachment A of the let- ter dated January 29, 1988. AYES : NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN : Totton, Voth, Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick None Cole, VanDyke None The motion carried. V. DESIGN COSTS. Little Dry Creek Ms. Ragland reviewed a request from Mclaughlin Water Engineers for additional funds to cover the cost of overruns on the design of the final phase of Little Dry Creek improvements. Ms. Ragland stated that as of November 16 , 1987, Mclaughlin had expended $30,840.32 over and above the approved contract • amount . Mclaughlin is asking only for an addit i onal $18,120. Ms . Ragland stated that the changes in design necessitated by State Highway Department -2 - • • • requirements were justified and recommended payment. Ms. Ragland also recom- mended payment for the costs necessitated because of the Mountain Bell con- duit. Ms. Ragland cited other costs which she felt were justified, and stated that she recommends payment of $12,795.00 for the costs over budget. Mr. Totton stated that there was nothing the EURA could do about the changes necessitated by the State Highway Department. Mr. Minnick asked if more prob- lems were anticipated on the Little Dry Creek final phase which could further increase overruns. Ms. Ragland stated that at this point no further problems were anticipated. Ms. Ragland did point out that although Lillard & Clark did not get started on the project until December, and not too much was accom- plished during that month, there are only approximately 1.5 weeks behind the work schedule. Tatton moved: Keena seconded: The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority approve payment of $12,795.00 for design costs over budget to Mclaughlin Water AYES: NAYS: ABSENJ: ABSTAIN: Engineers. Voth, Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton None VanDyke, Cole None The motion carried. VI. RBI STATUS REPORT . Mr. Hinson stated that the retainage held by the EURA on the RBI Contract was reduced in December, 1987 to approximately $141,000. RBI has requested that this amount be reduced to $58,000, which is approximately 2% of the contract price. Mr. Hinson stated that he had discussed this matter with Mr. Opperman, and Mr. Opperman suggested that a letter be sent to the surety company notify- ing them of the request, and asking that they give written approval before further reduction in the retainage is made. The letter to the surety company requests that if approval of the reduction request is granted, the surety com- pany will hold harmless and indemnify the EURA against any liability, damages, or costs in connection with the claims and deficiencies of the project. Mr. Hinson stated that the bottom line is that the Authority will not release any further retainage without the permission of the surety company. Mr. Opperman entered the meeting during Mr. Hinson's briefing of the Authority . Mr. Tatton stated that he would vote against any further release of retainage until the job is done. Mr. Totton discussed the position of the surety compa- ny, and stated in his opinion if it is determined the retainage reduction is requested because of a cash flow problem, the surety company would have some concern. Mr. Opperman further discussed the letter to the surety company, and empha- sized that no reduction in retainage will be approved without the written ap- proval of the surety company . Mr. Hinson discussed the handling of the retainage for the Lillard & Clark Company, wherein a specific money market account has been opened and earmarked - 3 - for those funds. Mr. Hinson stated that the retainage from RBI had been han- dled in similar fashion. Mr. Hinson stated that this discussion is for the information of the Authori- ty, and that no action is requested of the Authority at this time. VII. PHYSICAL WHIMSICAL Lawsuit Up-date Mr. Opperman stated that he had received a communication as of the 25th of January comprising the latest list of items for which compensation is being requested by the Physical Whimsical people. The total for reimbursement is now approaching $550,000. Items such as dinner expenses, rent, etc. have been included as items for which reimbursement is requested. Mr. Opperman stated that it is his opinion that most of the items on this list are not compen- sable. Mr. Opperman stated that he is preparing a motion to deny a number of the items on the list for compensation, and is reviewing the case for a means to reverse the decision. Mr. Opperman stated that members of his staff are contacting suppliers of similar recreational equipment, and will use these contacts in a consultant role. Mr. Opperman discussed strategy to determine the fair market value of the site at the time the Authority took the land. Mr .. Opperman stated that he anticipated presen~ing two witnesses, one of which will be Mr. Hinson, and the second will be Mr. Burbach, who did the appraisal of the site for Mr. Brady. He anticipates that Mr. Montano, the legal counsel for the Physical Whimsical people, will call Mr. Blaine Chase, an appraiser, and present the figures for the improvements indicated on the list. Mr. Opperman stated that the Court has stated that $15,000 must be deposited with the Courts by either McCullough Associates or Brady for reimbursement of the security deposit that Physical Whimsical had paid when the leased the premises, and which security deposit was not returned to them. This is a fee they are entitled to receive. Brief discussion ensued. VIII. LITTLE DRY CREEK PLAZA Plaza Activities Mr. Hinson stated that when the downtown improvement project was initially discussed, there was consideration of a "commons" area, and the allowance of various activities on the commons, such as flower vendors, art shows, etc. A special zoning was considered to govern the activities on the commons at that time. Mrs. Romans of the Planning Division asked him to discuss with the Au- thority whether the EURA would be interested in having a special zone district drafted as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to regulate activities in the plaza area to allow sale of flowers and other itinerant street vendors. Mr. Hinson stated that attached to his memorandum is a draft of the initial proposal that was drafted several years ago. Mr. Hinson stated that one concern that has expressed is that itinerant street vendors could well be in direct competition with established community businessmen. Ms . Keena asked about complaints regarding itinerant vendors -- • • have we received complaints. Mr. Hinson reported on a complaint received • about a plant sales operation that was allowed last summer at the Buyer's Club site. - 4 - • • • Mr. Mccown asked if the draft presented to the Authority had been reviewed by the Planning Division since the redesign of the redevelopment plan. Mr. Hin- son reiterated that it was given to him by Mrs. Romans of the Planning Divi- sion. Mr. Voth stated that he felt drafting any restrictions on use of the plaza area would be a matter for the Planning Division and Planning & Zoning Commission, and is not something the EURA wants to get involved with. Mr. Mcintyre expressed his concerns regarding allowance of special vendors on the plaza during special events. Mr. Totton noted that if the restrictions are defined to set a specific number of a specific type of operation, such as flower vendors or hot dog vendors, perhaps members of the local merchants community would want to bid to provide those services on the plaza. Discussion ensued. Ms. Keena stated that she did not feel the EURA should take formal action, and s~ould not be the initiator of any special zone dis- trict or regulations. Ms. Keena stated that the operation of the plaza and the maintenance of the plaza will be the responsibility of the City, not of the Authority. IX. FINANCIAL REPORTS Expenditure Report Investment Report Mr. Hinson stated that a revised Investment Report had been submitted to the Authority . Mr. Hinson asked if there were any questions on either the Investment Report or on the Expenditure Report. He noted that cash out-lay is rather slow right now, and that interest is accruing on the funds that have not been expended. Mr. Hinson stated that he will be meeting with the City Council on Monday to discuss the long -term financing for the Authority. X. CONSTRUCTION REPORT. Ms. Ragland stated that the Lillard & Clark project is progressing nicely. XI. TROLLEY SQUARE STATUS REPORT. Mr. Hinson stated that he had talked with Mr . Charles Ames of JWM Properties earlier in the day. They are proceeding with the bids for the Trolley Square revamping. JWM has made the City an offer to purchase the land under the new King Sooper's building rather than renegotiating the lease. This offer is being reviewed by the appraiser for the City. XII. ENGLEWOOD MARKETPLACE. Mr. Hinson stated that construction contracts for Children's Palace, Pier I and Check Auto Parts has been awarded to Murray Stafford. Building permits should be obtained from the City later this week. The determination has been made to hold off on construction of the Ponderosa Restaurant because the con- struction time for a restaurant is only approximately three months, and Tram- mell Crow wants to bring everything on line for opening at the same time . Trammell Crow representat i ves are negotiating locations for some of the ten - ants they have signed, and the latest square footage figures indicate that -5 - 98,000 square feet of retail space will be constructed in the Marketplace phase of the redevelopment. XIII. MOUNTAIN BELL CASE. Mr. Hinson discussed the Mountain Bell lawsuit as it has progressed thus far. Errors were made in the transcript which are being brought to the attention of the judge, and Mr. Benedetti is preparing a brief for the EURA. Mr. Hinson stated that he understood the City Attorney is also preparing a brief. XIV. SIGN CODE VARIANCE. Mr. Hinson stated that the placement of directional signs at the intersection of Englewood Parkway and South Broadway and Englewood Parkway and U. S. 285 will necessitate requesting a variance from the provisions of the Sign Code. This request will be heard before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on February 10, in the Englewood Council Chambers . Mr. Hinson stated that rather than have the EURA in a "supporting" position to an applicant, it has been determined that the EURA should be the applicant requesting the variance. In light of this determination, Resolution #3 has been prepared for presentation to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at the time of the Hearing. A draft of a proRosed sign was given members of the Authority for their consideration. Mr. Hinson stated that this would be a Joint Identification/Directional Sign, containing the names of more than one redevelopment area. Mr. Hinson asked that the Authority consider Resolution #3 for approval. Brief discussion ensued. Minnick moved: Tatton seconded : The Urban Renewal Authority approve and adopt Resolution #3, Series of 1988, A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY REQUESTING FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST OF SECTION 16.4-19-SK, SIGN CODE, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Voth, None Cole, None Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Tatton VanDyke The motion carried. XV. LINCOR PROPERTIES OF COLORADO, INC. Mr. Hinson introduced Ms . Mary Anne Shube, Vi ce President of Retail Develop- ment for Linear Properties of Colorado , Inc. Ms. Shube discussed the progress of negotiations with the prospective anchor tenant for the old King Sooper 's site. She asked that members of the Authori- ty consider this discussion to be highly confidential. Ms. Daugherty entered the meeting, and took her chair with the members of the Authority. Ms . Shube pointed out that the tenant is considering a 50,000 square foot building. This anchor is a high traffic , high retail sales volume retailer, -6 - • • • • • • and typically opens with approximately 25,000 customers per week. Ms. Shube stated that in her discussions with other prospective tenants, they were anx- ious to have the prospective tenant as anchor in this phase of the redevelop- ment. Ms. Shube expressed her frustration that negotiations have not pro- gressed at a quicker pace, but expressed her belief and that of her company that the prospective tenant is sincerely interested in the site. It is the intent of this anchor tenant company to open multiple stores in the Denver area at approximately the same time. Therefore, all site determinations will be made simultaneously. She understands that they want to be in the stores in early 1989. Ms. Shube stated that she has been working with real estate rep- resentatives who are in constant contact with the President of the company; they have told her that the Englewood Store would be most expensive deal they have working in Denver, and that the cost of the Englewood site is still $1.50 to $2 above the costs negotiated for other locations. Ms. Shube stated that she has tried to convey to the tenant representatives the fact that in-fill sites are more expensive than suburban raw land that has never been developed. Ms. Shube discussed the latest site plan, which was approved by the President of the anchor tenant company earlier this date. Ms. Shube stated that she was aware that delays in signing the tenant anchor is ,co~ting the EURA, and pointed out that Lincor is also experiencing costs because of this delay, citing architectural fees, fees for soils testing, and staff time as examples of Lincor's commitment to the project. Mr. Totton asked if a standard lease had been sent from the potential tenant to the Lincor attorney. Ms. Shube stated that she has found out there is no standard lease form, but she has been told they would receive the construction drawings from the prospective tenant . Discussion ensued. The issue of the sign was discussed. Ms. Shube stated that she felt she could promote the concept of a "shared sign", but the tenant has been adamant that there must be a directional sign at U.S. 285 and the Parkway. Ms. Shube thanked the members of the Authority for their time and consider- ation, and excused herself from the meeting. Discussion among members of the Authority ensued. Mr. Hinson suggested that the Authority consider extending the terms of the contract with Lincor for 30 days; this would assure that the Public Hearing before the Board of Adjustment would be over and, hopefully, a decision rendered on the Sign. If the deter- mination of the Board is favorable, this should alleviate one concern of the anchor tenant. Ms. Keena asked the staff to determine at what point it is feasible financial- ly to reduce the price of land to assure a development versus holding out at a previously determined price . If the Authority were to write down the cost of the land by another $1.50, what would this cost be versus waiting an indefi- nite period of time for another developer to come along. Mr. Hinson stated that the cost of the $1/sq. ft. write down, which was previously approved by the Authority, came to $282,000. Mr. Hinson also pointed out that the Au- thority spent $200,000 in interest payments on the loan during 1987. Further- more, there is no potential source of income with which to consider an addi- tional write down. Discussion followed. - 7 - Totton moved: Mcintyre seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority grant a 30 day extension on the Tenant Contingency and deed dates in the Contract with Lin- cor Properties of Colorado, Inc. AYES: NAYS: Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton, Voth None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VanDyke, Cole None The motion carried. XVI. EDDA. Ms. Dietrich stated t~at Ms. Keena had called the Centennial Chamber of Com- merce regarding a cable TV video on economic development in Englewood. Ms. Dietrich stated that she and City Manager Mccown had done the video, and a member of Governor Romer's staff had seen the show. Governor Romer has ex- pressed an interest in viewing the Englewood redevelopment project, and ar- rangements have been made for a tour of the redevelopment project by the Governor on February 16. ' XVII. LAND ACQUISITION. Mr. Hinson reported briefly on the status of the Buechler/Guilford case. There being nothing further to come before the Authority, the meeting was de- clared adjourned at 7:10 P.M. / / ~~A~ Giirtrude G. Welti' Recording Secretar; -8 - • • •