Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-15 EURA MINUTESENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Fe brua ry 15, 2 00 6 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewa l Authority was called to order at 6:30 p.m . in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civ i c Center, Chair Bertoluzzi presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Eric Bertoluzzi, Tom Burns, Anthony Gallardo, Don Roth, Robin Weddle, Laura Rogers Jim Woodward (excused absence) Senior Planner Mark Graham 11. APPROVAL OF MIN U T ES January 11, 2006 Chair Be rtoluzzi stated that the Minutes of January 11, 2006 were to be considered for approval. Ms. Rogers stated her absence from the January 11, 2006 meeting was excused by prior notice to the Chair. Roth moved: Weddle seconded: The Minutes of January 11, 2006 be approved as amended. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Roth, Weddle, Burns, Rogers None None Woodward The motion carried. Ill. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Wedd l e moved: Burns seconded : Eric Bertoluzzi remain as Chair and Don Roth remain as Vice Chair. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Roth, Weddle, Burns , Rogers None None Woodward The motion carried. IV. ACOMA REDEVELOPMENT Mr. Graham met with Council on February 7, 2006 to discuss the proposals. No decision was made. Council took the information from staff including the recommendations and rankings of the group. Council had a concern about the potential of indebtedness and the terms of the deal as proposed by the developers. The Council anticipates discussing the proposals again at the Economic Development Retreat held in the Community Room at the City on Saturday, February 25, 2006, if time allows. Mr. Burns requested clarification on what the Economic Development Retreat is. Mr. Graham stated it was put together by the Mayor who asked staff to assemble information regarding economic development in the City. There are approximately 20 projects that the City is working on with various levels of City involvement. There are four programs that are ongoing in Community Development that provide various kinds of assistance to people who locate or expand their businesses in Englewood that will be discussed. Ms. Weddle asked Mr. Graham to clarify what the developers were worried about regarding the indebtedness and if it was specifically the parking structure . Mr. Graham stated the cost of the parking structure would be approximately $4.4 million for the 396 parking spaces. That figure caused some concern. There were various interpretations of the data and Council asked for a recalculation of the data. Council was provided an analysis that was prepared by Development Research Partners that analyzed using a fiscal impact model that has been used on various projects, including CityCenter. That model was reviewed and Mr. Graham stated there is some decent revenue from both of the projects, but not enough to pay what the estimated debt service is; they are asking what other sources of revenue are available. That model only looks at the project and does not factor in any revenue from other sources. Various sources of revenue were discussed including the expiring TIF District revenues that are scheduled to expire mid to late third quarter 2007, additional revenue that was estimated in the Development Research Partners, payment for the land and the use tax paid on the development of the condos and the commercial space. Bonding is not an option for the parking deck. Mr. Graham stated it is his hope that if revenues can be identified the Council will not focus so much on the revenue question and look more at what the project does for the downtown and what the value is to the community. Staff asked Developers to provide for two alternatives for parking. Each was asked to provide 100 spaces and the option for an additional 100 spaces. Centex proposed counting on street spaces, which together with 70 off-street spaces, adds up to 130 to 140 parking spaces in the downtown. This proposal makes sense according to the Walker Parking Analysis that indicates there is not a shortage of parking, but that it is distributed badly. The other idea is that parking is holding down the development of the property on that block, therefore more parking should be supplied. It does not make much economic sense when you look at the analysis, but there is a group that is supporting this option. 2 Other assumptions were analyzed: i.e., that perhaps there is not the demand for the kind of office space that was assumed under one of the proposals. A lot of the economic impact of that proposal goes away when you subtract 60 professional jobs out of the area. It does not perform nearly as well. Mr. Burns asked for clarification regarding the basis of the assumption there is no market. Mr. Graham stated Mr. Woodward would best be able to explain that statement. Mr. Graham stated the developer was hesitant about putting the office space in the project and qualified it to say if it did not pre-lease they would not build it. Chair Bertoluzzi asked Mr. Graham for clarification regarding parking in his memo to the Board dated February 10 111 • In the Recent Developments portion of the memo in the Englewood Lofts II paragraph it contains the sentence "absent the theatre there would be no need for a large parking structure" ... in the paragraphs regarding the other two proposals there is no mention of parking. Please clarify if parking would be needed for the Lofts proposal and the Centex proposal. Mr. Graham stated Centex proposed to provide fewer parking places than what had been identified as the public objectives. They were going to provide 68 spaces, when a minimum of 100 had been requested. Centex was also asked to provide the cost for an additional 100 spaces. They did neither of those. If you just look at the numbers the Centex proposal looks better, but if you look at what they are providing, they are only providing two-thirds of the parking at 68 spaces. A comparison cannot be made when Centex is not providing the same 100 spaces that Englewood Lofts are providing along with the option for the additional 100 spaces. Mr. Graham feels Centex understands the parking study, and the fact Walker Parking said Englewood does not have a parking shortage. But Centex did not address the merchant's concerns that there be 100 off-street parking spaces. Chair Bertoluzzi requested more detail from Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham stated there was a fairly lengthy discussion in the Council memo, but that memo is confidential at this time, but would be happy to make that information available once it becomes authorized. Chair Bertoluzzi thanked Mr. Graham for his memos that provide so much information to the Board. Discussion regarding the Resolution ensued. Mr. Graham stated he was hoping to have a recommendation from the Council and begin negotiations soon after the meeting by designating Mr. Bob Simpson to be the negotiator that represents EURA in negotiations. EURA needs to see what is being negotiated . He suggested the Authority may want to further condition the Resolution upon getting the deal in front of the Authority before anything is inked and making the recommendation before it goes to Council. Mr. Simpson and Mr. Rick Kahm were the two people that will negotiate with selected developer. They negotiated the real estate deal with the Development Solutions Group that built the medical building on the old City Hall property and work closely on CityCenter. They are a proven team for City negotiations. Mr. Simpson would be there representing the interests of the owner, the Urban Renewal Authority. 3 Mr. Graham then asked the Board to please look at the Resolution and see if it is acceptable. Chair Bertoluzzi asked Ms. Weddle if she was on the review committee. She responded that she was, along with Mr. Roth. Chair Bertoluzzi asked Ms. Weddle and Mr. Roth for clarification regarding the review process and if they recommended the top three proposals as suitable projects for the Acoma site. Ms. Weddle and Mr. Roth said yes, they all qualified. Chair Bertoluzzi said that since EURA owns this property would it not be appropriate for the recommendation to Council come from the EURA Board? Ms. Weddle asked for clarification of his comment. Chair Bertoluzzi stated since the EURA owns the property he does not understand why the EURA Board did not make the formal recommendation to City Council. Ms. Weddle provided an explanation of how the recommendation was made and that there were members of the EURA Board on the committee talking to the developers and making recommendations. Mr. Roth stated there were also other members representing different aspects of the City on the committee. The idea was to get different perspectives. Chair Bertoluzzi stated his understanding of the process was that "once it goes to the review committee it more or less has been taken away from EURA and it will not come back until there is a draft of an agreement between the negotiators and the developer." Isn't that correct? Mr. Graham stated that would be a correct statement. Chair Bertoluzzi stated that the EURA Board may be asked to approve a contract that the Board never recommended be negotiated. He stated he feels that the Board should play a more official role somehow so that it does not become a problem later. Chair Bertoluzzi feels that the power has gone to the review committee, which to him does not seem appropriate. Mr. Graham asked for clarification on how Chair Bertoluzzi wished to proceed. Chair Bertoluzzi stated he feels the proposals lack the definition for the Board to make a knowledgeable recommendation as a Board. Ms. Weddle stated the final decision is not the Board's, but Council's and the Review Committee should be coming to the Board. Mr. Graham stated the Authority has the right under law to buy and sell and hold property and the Board would typically have to approve a sale of property and authorize someone to execute the documents in conjunction with the sale. Mr. Graham said the Board is not at that stage yet. More information is needed from the developers to make a decision. In the next stage, if Council selects a developer, all that information will need to be provided. Mr. Burns and Chair Bertoluzzi stated they are concerned about the legality of the process and are reluctant to go forward until that is clarified. Mr. Graham asked if the Board would like to have another EURA meeting with Nancy Reid as legal counsel. Mr. Burns stated he felt that before the Board meets again a memo needs to be prepared telling us how we should proceed. Chair Bertoluzzi suggested that the City Attorney's office and EURA's legal counsel meet and get back to the Board with clarification. Mr. Graham stated EURA's legal counsel was not available to come to a meeting, but on a consulting basis the Authority could pose questions to him. He also stated the City Attorney's office is protecting the City's interest and are not the Authority's legal counsel. Mr. Graham suggested Mr. Benedetti compose a memo on behalf of the Authority explaining whether this process would have any pitfalls in terms of the members of the Authority properly doing their job. Chair Bertoluzzi also wanted assurance that the actions taken by the Board are consistent 4 with the by-laws and/or state laws for the EURA The Board agreed to contact Mr. Benedetti. Chair Bertoluzzi stated he wanted to make it clear he is not opposed to development of the property, just the legality of the process. Mr. Graham stated the Resolution would be tabled until the March 8 111 EURA meeting. V. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson was not pres e nt. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Ms. Weddle asked if Chair Bertoluzzi was clear on which proposal would be selected if he were making the choice. Chair Bertoluzzi stated his position right now is that there is insufficient information for him to make a judgment at this time. Ms. Weddle stated any clarity on parking in each proposal seems to be absent. She stated that as a group the EURA owes it to the City to insure that that aspect of whatever project is fulfilled. Mr. Roth stated Council is under considerable pressure in that direction also. Chair Bertoluzzi asked the members if they believe the EURA Board should have an opportunity to contemplate and /or discuss on all aspects of a piece of property owned by the EURA Mr. Roth responded that ultimately the Board has to vote yes or no on whatever City Council proposes. Mr. Graham stated that Vicki Mattox indicated that there was the ability to finance up to 12 million dollars and the largest request was for 4.4 million dollars so the proposals are well under the threshold of what the Certificate of Participation could fund, but Ms. Mattox did not have enough detail to look at the project and say the project would cover the debt service and EURA did not have enough detail at the time the information was requested, so there are a lot of loose ends that will come together as the project goes forward. Mr. Graham stated that by law you cannot prepay a Certificate of Participation. You pay for the value you receive in a given year and nothing more. There was no further business to come before the Authority; the meeting was declared adjourned at 7:25 p.m .. Barbara Krecklow/, Recording Secretary 5