Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-26 EURA MINUTESENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 26, 1993 The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority convened in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall in Special Meeting to consider the issue of the Englewood Depot Relocation. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Steve Mulhern called the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M. Members present: K. Waggoner, S. Waggoner, Mulhern, Drew, Havens Lee D. Merkel, Executive Director/Executive Secretary Members absent: Byrne, Smith Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrator Jacque Wedding-Scott, Assistant City Manager Guests present: Joe Tatarka, President, Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce Mr. Mulhern welcomed Mr. Havens and Mr. Drew to the EURA, and asked that everyone in- troduce themselves. II. ENGLEWOOD DEPOT PROPOSED RELOCATION Mr. Mulhern asked Executive Director Merkel for background on the proposed relocation of the Englewood Depot. Mr. Merkel stated that the Englewood Depot, located within the City of Sheridan, but in very close proximity to and on the same property as the Office Depot business on West Hampden A venue, has been the subject of much discussion in recent months. The property owners where the Depot is located want the Depot moved, or they will raze the structure; they have cited a time limit of mid-September to accomplish this. The Rootin' Tootin' Movin' Commit- tee (RTMC) has expressed interest in relocating this structure to the vacant property on the southwest corner of South Broadway and Englewood Parkway. The Englewood Urban Re- newal Authority purchased property on the corner of Broadway and former West Girard Ave- nue when the Englewood Parkway construction was occurring, a portion of which was used for street construction. The EURA still owns 28.5 feet of Broadway frontage on the south side of the Parkway. The City, in 1990, purchased the 50 feet south of the property owned by the EURA after a fire destroyed the structure that was on the property. These two sites, owned by the EURA and by the City, have been vacant for several years. It is this site to which the RTMC proposes to move the Depot. Mr. Merkel asked Ms. Wedding-Scott to further discuss the background leading up to this meeting. Ms. Wedding-Scott stated that the RTMC became very active approximately four months ago; their main thrust was to find a new location for the Depot; the second thrust was to get a committed "end use" once the new location was secured, funds raised for the move, etc. They contacted the Englewood Chamber of Commerce, the EDDA, and the Historical Society, and the Chamber indicated an interest in using the refurbished Depot as their office. Ms. Wed- ding-Scott noted that the preliminary estimates are in excess of $200,000 to relocate and rehab the structure. The RTMC wanted to locate the Depot in an area with high visibility, and the vacant site on the corner of Broadway and Englewood Parkway was suggested. The RTMC felt that relocating the Depot to this site, rehabilitating the building, and its use as Chamber of Commerce offices, would serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in the downtown area. The City began working with the RTMC to encourage relocating of the Depot somewhere else --where there would be more "community use", and not on a prime commercial site. Sug- gested sites included Belleview Park and Cushing Park, among others. The Belleview Park site would not be satisfactory because of the problem of sewer service. The Cushing Park site was not well received by the Chamber due to relatively larger utility extension costs. The RTMC was, however, interested in the walkthrough area in the 3400 Block of South Acoma -- again, owned by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. The members of the RTMC were advised that this might not be the best location given the fact of ownership, the default of the bonds by EURA, and RTMC backed away from consideration of this site. City Council has given approval to begin negotiations with the Chamber to lease the 50 foot site the City owns on South Broadway; however, there is still the 28.5 foot site which is owned by the EURA. The two ownerships by themselves are not of a size to foster good de- velopment, but together would comprise a sufficient site for a nice development. Ms. Wed- ding-Scott suggested that options to be considered are: (1) A lease agreement with the Cham- ber with all three parties part of the lease agreement; (2) Have the City acquire the EURA property through sale or lease; or (3) Have the EURA acquire the City property through sale or lease. Ms. Wedding-Scott discussed the September deadline for destruction of the Depot if it cannot be moved, or a commitment to move secured , by that date. The Depot does have historical significance to the City of Englewood, and while City staff has not been supportive of reloca- tion to the commercial site on South Broadway, they do support relocating the Depot to a site within the limits of the City. The issue of ownership of the building after relocation, to whom would funds to be raised for relocation and rehabilitation be paid, and whom the EURA would be leasing land to were dis- cussed. Mr. Tatarka suggested that there are many unanswered questions at this point. The best solu- tion, in his opinion, would be to consolidate the two ownerships so that there is only one entity 2 dealing with the Chamber of Commerce on the ultimate use of this site. Mr. Tatarka then stated that Councilwoman Gulley, also a member of the Chamber of Commerce and of the Englewood Housing Authority, had raised this issue for discussion at the recent EHA meeting. EHA had expressed interest in allowing the Depot to be relocated temporarily to property it owns north of Cushing Park. Mr. Tatarka then discussed the general condition of the struc- ture, the use of the structure by transients, the concern of the present property owner, and the deadline for relocation which the property owner has set. Mr. Tatarka also discussed the pro- posed ultimate use of the Depot once it i s relocated and rehabilitated, including the Chamber of Commerce general offices, possible meeting rooms for service clubs in a basement, etc. Mr. Tatarka also discussed the need for broad-based support for the relocation of the Depot, and the use of the Broadway/Englewood Parkway site for the Depot. He stated that the Englewood Downtown Development Authority has gone on record in opposition to the use of this site for the relocated Depot. Mr. Tatarka discussed the improvements which are occurring along Santa Fe Drive, the resultant limited access, the uncertainty on the future of Cinderella City , and the need for a catalyst to promote business and development in the downtown area. Mr. Tatarka cited rough estimates that the RTMC and Chamber have developed for the cost of moving and rehabilitating the structure: $30,000 to move; slab and small "cellar" would be an additional $24,000; a full basement would add $30,000; renovation of the total building would be another $200,000. The offer of the EHA owned property north of Dartmouth Avenue at Cushing Park was further discussed. Councilman Waggoner pointed out that this would necessitate two moves, and in- crease the overall cost of the project. The insurance issue was further discussed. Councilman Waggoner suggested that possibly assistance on the insurance cost could be provided to the property owner to give more time to solidify the relocation of the Depot. Mr. Havens sug- gested that possibly the Depot could be secured by fencing at the present location to alleviate the time crunch, in addition to assistance on the insurance cost. Councilman Waggoner stated that in his opinion, this proposed relocation (South Broad- way/Englewood Parkway site) may be a good thing for downtown Englewood; he suggested that the horsecar might also be relocated to the same site, which would give additional histori- cal significance to the site. Mr. Merkel, Mr. Mulhern and Mr. Stitt reviewed discussions they had with Legal Council Paul Benedetti on this issue, and Mr. Merkel distributed a written response from Mr. Benedetti to members of the Authority and to Mr. Tatarka. (Mr. Benedetti's memorandum is appended to these Minutes.) Mr. Mulhern stated that the EURA must consider what is in the best interest of the bondhold- ers, and make sure the ultimate use is the "highest and best use". Discussion ensued. Mr. Drew asked if there had been offers on this particular site. Mr. Merkel stated that there have been several inquiries, but when the interested parties determine that the ownership is between the EURA and the City, it sounds more cumbersome, and they do not pursue it. Mr. Merkel stated that Economic Development Administrator Pepper recently spoke to a businessman who 3 is trying to consummate a lease in Trolley Square, and this individual reportedly has indicated if the Trolley Square deal does not work out, he might be interested in the purchase of this site. Mr. Merkel stated that one problem with development in the Central Business District in general is that of parking; staff has been considering a "fee in lieu of parking", but this is not to a point of consideration by the Planning Commission or Council yet. Ms. Wedding-Scott confirmed that there are a lot of inquiries received regarding this particular site, but the dual ownership does seem to present a stumbling block to prospective purchasers/developers. The prospect of leasing the land to the City was discussed. This could be a way to encourage development of that corner whether the Depot is relocated to this site or not. The issue of lease versus sale to the City was discussed. Mr. Merkel pointed out that this is a tight budget year, and the City Council might not feel it has the funds to pay the Authority for this owner- ship. A lease agreement with the City could assure the Authority a proportionate share of any income from the ultimate disposition/use of the site. The issue of outright sale of the property to the City was discussed. Mr. Mulhern pointed out that no one knows what the market is or would be for a 28.5 x 125 foot strip of land. Mr. Waggoner pointed out that there are no curb cuts from Broadway to the site; and none from the Parkway. Were a curb cut to be secured, it would have to be right-in/right-out movement. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Tatarka suggested that a "united front" from the Authority and the City on this particular site would enhance its marketability. Other developments in the downtown area were discussed, such as Trolley Square, the burned Eagles building on the east side of Broadway, the vacant Englewood Appliance store. Mr. Merkel pointed out that the former Englewood Appliance building is leased, and Prestige Furniture will be moving there in the near future. Mr. Merkel discussed the problems with Trolley Square --it is under the control of the FDIC, who will not approve long term leases, or agree to pay for tenant finish, and prospective tenants do not want to pay for tenant finish with a month-to-month lease. The issue of lease versus sale to the City was further explored. Mr. Mulhern pointed out that if a prospective developer is dealing with one ownership, it could result in a better develop- ment plan for the site. The value of the property was further discussed . Ms. Wedding-Scott stated that total costs on the City acquisition of the 50 feet on South Broadway was $43,000; estimated value of both parcels (EURA's 28.5 feet plus the City's 50 feet) is $50 ,000. Reve- nues of sales tax, property tax, etc. have been factored in to reach an estimated value to the City of $68,000 over a three-year period. Ms. Wedding-Scott emphasized this is a rough es- timate. Ms. Wedding-Scott suggested that if property values alone were considered, it would warrant approximately $7,000 over and above what the City paid for its 50 feet in 1990. Property values were further discussed, as was the issue of lease versus sale. 4 Kells Waggoner moved: Sam Waggoner seconded: The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority sell the 28.5 feet owned by the Authority at South Broadway and Englewood Parkway to the City of Englewood for fair value. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Drew raised the issue of funds available for land acquisition in a tight budget year. Mr. Havens suggested that a secondary position could be the sale or lease at fair market value. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: NAYS: K. Waggoner, S. Waggoner, Mulhern, Drew, Havens None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Byrne, Smith None The motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Authority, the meeting was declared ad- journed at 7: 15 P.M. ,J Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary 5 RUG-24-1993 15:24 FROM PC BENEDETTI Paul C. Benedetti P.O. Box 3138 Attorney at Law .Boulder, Colorado 80307-3138 MEMORANDUM TO: Lee D. Merkel TO 7891125 P.02 Telephone: (303) 499"'6340 Fu: (303) 499-6408 RE: Proposed Lease; Chamber of Commerce Depot Relocation DATE: August 24, 1993 The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority owns a narrow strip of land 28.5 feet wide fronting on Broadway and adjoining a )0-foot parcel owned by the City of Englewood. The City has voted to negotiate a lease of its parcel with the Chamber of Commerce to provide a site for the relocation of the Er1glewood train depot. The Chamher want" to lease the RTJRA strip to combine with the City site. You have asked me to comment on the proposed lease in light of the defaulted EURA bonds and the duties owed by EURA to the Trustee and the bondholders. EURA is responsible for carrying out what remains of the urban renewal project in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. Any sale, lease or other transfer of real property must be for a use in accordance with the urban renewal plan. §31-25-106 (1), C.R.S. If a private party is involved, the transfer must be for fair value (as determined by the commissioners) for use:s li1 a.u.;oruax1~ with tht: plan. §31-25-106 (1), C.R.S. Property may be set aside, dedicated and transferred to a public body for public uses in accordance with the urban renewal plan with or without compensation. §31-25-106 (4), C.R.S. Sale or lease to a private party requires a reasonable competitive bidding procedure. §31-25-106 (2), C.R.S. Property may be temporarily sold or leased for less than fair value and for uses that do not conform with the urban renewal plan. §31-25-106 (3), C.R.S. If the urban renewal plan require:s property to be transferred, it shall be transferred as rapidly as feasible in the public interest consistent with carrying out the plan. §31-25-106 (1)1 C.R.S. Because of the small size of the EURA parcel 1 it seems most logical to combine it with the City land and cooper<>.te to lease or sell it for a feasible use or development for the maximum amount possible. The City's action has, in effect, limited EURA in its options for its property. Under these circumstances, a lease at market rates for the entire site to the Chamber would be consistent with any duties EURA owes to the Trustee and the bondholders. To comply with the statute, EURA should advertise its land in accordance with §31-25-106 (2), C.R.S. TOTAL P.02