Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-30 (Special) Meeting Agenda• - • • • 0 City Council Meeting -Special April 30, 1984 • • • ~~ !J:v ";;~/J v~d D , i/iu'T • • • ~ ::# /;tJ. o21J, cJ../, c9 ~ ~ ~~~ I~ /1. OkJ ,e:LI • 0 0 • I . . • S PECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado April 30, 1984 /t-- The City Council of the City of Englewood, Ar a pahoe Coun ty , Colorado, met in special session on April 30, 1984. Ma yo r Otis, presiding, called the meeti ng to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Higday. The pledge of allegia nc e was given by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the foll owing wer e pr e sent: Council Me mb e rs llig da y, Neal , Vob ejda , Weis t, Dilo, Bradshaw, Otis. MAYOR OTIS: We have a quorum. Can we have a motion to open the public he ari ng. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW: So moved. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO: Second. DEPUTY OWEN: All votes have been cast. Your honor, let the rec ord show there are 7 ayes and no nayes. MAYOR OTIS: Motion carried. The purpose of the public hearing was to consider the Amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan by li sting some additional properties and leasehold interests for ac quisition by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. The properti es to be considered tonight include the following: 3311 South Broadway, and the leases within the following pro perties: 3333 South Broadway 3315 South Broadway 3365 South Broadway 3378 South Acom a 3370 South Acoma 3340 South Acom a , and 33 w st Girard Avenue As I stated in the last in the l ast hearing w had on this subject, in order for the City Council to consider this request, the Urban Renewal Authority must first make a finding that the developer, the Brady Corporation, had negotiated in good faith with each tenant or owner. Tonight, the City has received a Resolution No. 13, from the Urban Renewal Auth ority , a pproved on April 25, 1984. This resolution states • I • - • • • • • -2- that the Urban Renewal Authority has reviewed the developer 's documentati on and has determined that the redeveloper has fulfilled its obligation fo r good faith negotiations, pursuan t to Sect io n 1.2 of the agreement for the redevelopment between the authority and the redevel oper. It is not within the resp onsibil ities of the City Council to go beyond or behind the Urban Renewal 's Autho rity 's review o f th at documentation; t herefore, the City Council will no t be determining whether or no t Brady has n eg oti ated i n good faith. This determination has alrea dy be en made by the Ur b an Renewal. Th e City Council must decid e whether the proposed am endment to the Englewood Down tow n redevelopment pla n is nec essary to the successful impl e mentation of the plan and is co nsidered b eneficial to the community as a whol e . If the City Coun cil vote s t onight to amend th e pl a n and list the propert y a nd leasehold int erests for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority, then the Urban Renewal Autho rity will beg i n nego tia t i ons with the property owners and lea seholders. Aga i n, I wa nt to reemphasize th~t the decision as to good f ith negoti at io n s is the r es ponsib ilit y of the Urban Renewal Autho rit y and that d e cision h as b ee n consid ered a n d made by them at this time . Th e Cou ncil does not have this responsibility and wi ll not act on this issue. While me mb ers of the audience are free to comment on any iss u e tonight , a nd I do hav e a listing of people that wish to address the Coun cil, if anybod y else wishes to address the Council we can s e nd this list b ack to the a udience so that you can sign it. If you do wish to address the Co uncil, I would request that you limit your comments to the iss u e of whether the amendment to the plan is deemed necessary to the successful impleme ntat i on of the plan and is considered beneficial to the community a s a whole. I want to say again that the City Council cannot and will not b e determining a ny good faith nego tiati ons tonight. Due to the numb er of people that are in th e audience, there ma y be more th a n wh at we h a v e listed here who wish to address the Council and I would like to ask each part y to l imit their comments to a maximum of 5 minutes a nd to no t repeat comments prev i ously made by another party, so that we will not be here a ll eve ning. I would like to first ask Susan Powers, the executive director of the Urban Renewal Authority to a ddr ess the Council regarding the recommendation of the Englewood Urban Renewal Author ity on this issue. When she is finished , then I will open up the hearing to people who have signed this sheet requesting to speak to the Council . DIRECTOR POWERS: Mayor, and Council , in March of this year the Urban Renewal Authority was presented with a request from the Brady Cor por ati on to list certain properti es and leasehold interests in the urban renewal plan for acquisition by the Authority. The original list contained 19 leases in addition to 3311 South Broadway, which was the old First National Bank building. Last week, Brady informed the Urban Re n e wal Authority they h ad made agr e ements with all but 7 lessees in the property own ed by Brady. These agreements are either signed , or will be signed this week ; therefore , they are only asking Urban Renewal Authority to review documentation on negotiations for the 7 leases , as well as the Fir st National Bank building--the old First National Bank building. The Ur ban Renewal Authority met on Wednesday, April 25 and concluded in Resolution No. 13 that Brady had in fact fulfilled its requirements of the November '8 3 agreement for disposition of redevelopment, specifically I • - • • • • • -3- 1 .2 , wh ich ou t line good f a ith negotiation requirements . It is the rec ommendation of the Urban Renewa l Authority that the City Counci l amend the Downtown Development Plan and list the properties a nd leasehold interest s on Amendment 6 in the Plan for acquisition by the Urb an Renewal Authorit y . I would like to give the Clerk a copy o f the Urban Ren ewal Authorit y's Resolution and have it entered into th e record . Ar e th ere an y questi o ns? Mayo r Otis: Ar e there any questions from Council? COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Sus an , how ma ny properties were initi a lly inv olved? DIRECTOR POWERS: Nineteen. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: And how many have reached agreement? DIREC TOR POWERS: Twelv e a r e settled at t his point. CO UN CI L MEMBER NEAL: And wh at is you r und e rstanding--you h a v e bee n g ive n to understand that sever a l were a greed but not signed? DIRECTOR POWERS: There were only 7 that remain on the list on t he lis t in front of you. It is my understanding, and maybe Brady's a tt orn ey could a lso address this, that there were 3 of those 7 tha t they ho p e to resolve this week, but they haven't been at this point. MAYOR OTIS: Are there any other questions? UNIDENTIFIED ATTENDEE: Mr. Mayor, could we h a v e that list so we could sign in if we wish to speak? MAYOR OTIS: I have two lists here, one that says "Observer", and one that says "Wish to Speak"--I'll go with the one that wish to speak and I'll call on Mr. Gene Issen first. EUGENE ISSEN: Council, I'm Eugene Issen, I'm owner of the Man 's World-Short Shop Stop on 3365 South Broadway. I'm sitting back here and I'm listening and--I don't want to hear what is going on because--you know it's a losing battle. I opened my store, basically--it opened for business approximately 6 or 7 months--and incidentally, do ing ver y wel l. I think we would b e a v er y, very fine asset to Englewood. I didn 't open this thing haphazardly. I conferred with Fred Kaufman, who I 'v e known for ma ny , many y ears ; we talked a bou t this 15 years ago . I'm sure Fred wou ldn 't have let me go in to be his n e xt door neighbor to this avai l. I put in a lot of money, in fact, I invested 30 years of life and li velihood to op e n up this store. I have a b ea utiful store. I feel we ~rea real as5el to Englewood . I'm sort o[ on b e nded knees. I'm in a situati on where you are not talking about bu i lding, you are talking about destroying . There 's two facets her e . 1 feel by your building, you are destroying. l 'm not asking for anything that's unreasonable, all I wa nt to do is to conti nu e wh at I started, wheth e r it b e n e xt to Fred Kaufman, or down the strP.et . Unfortunately, things take money today--! went deeply i n debt a nd the only way I can pay my debts is through my I • • - • • • • -4- bu s i ness. We ar e doing the business--if my business folds, I go. We h ave had two meetings with Brady Corporation. They laid out the guide l ines, which is supposedly fair negotiations. What is fair? I've got a situation, if you want to see what we consider fair. We gave them a n of f e r, we showe d them bona fide figures, f a cts, what it c ost u s t o put in t ha t store, short duration, and they're going by the guide lines. As I was here before, I said everybody had a particular need. I'm pleading with you, I'm b e gg-ing with you. All I want to do--I will take a lo se , b ut not to lose--I loose every time. I just want to continue what I started. Englewood was good to me, I worked for Englewood Men's Store some 30 years ago. People know me. I come from the shoulder, and I am p leading with you. Listen to these people because you are dealing wi t h with lies. It isn't only documents. Condemnation was caused, and it is in the Supreme Court today, people, developers are using this tool for situations like this and just bypassing the guy who pays the taxes. And a ll I'm doing, I'm pleading, I don't want to make a long dissertation, I wa n t you to know my situation, there's many people lik ~ myself, and a ll l wa n t to do is have something fair, so I can continu e my business--! not a sking for any blue sky. I'm asking for my life--it is in your hands, a nd th at is all that I'v e got to s a y. MAYOR OTIS: Richard I. Brown RICHARD BROWN: Mayor Otis, Members of the Council, Ms. Powers, I am re a lly appalled by what I've heard so far by you, Mayor Otis. You were elected by a constituency here to represent the interests of the City, and what has resulted since my involvement in this matter a pproximately a month ago, has been one delay, one side-step, one private meeting, one executive council after another. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Hay we have some further identification f rom you Mr. Brown? Are you representing someone or -- RICHARD BROWN: I represent, Councilman Neal, as each of you undoubtedly been advised by your council, Physical Whimsical, Inc. at 3315 South Broadway. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: You're not making a statement then that we--you said that we were elected to represent the citizens of the City a nd then you imply that we are not doing that, but you, in fact, ar e not representing them. Right? RICHARD BROWN: Is Physical Whimsical, Inc., Mr. Higday, not a ci tizen of th i s --huh--constituency? COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: A citizen that elected me is telling me a ll along that I am doing a good job -- Rl C IIAIW BROWN: 'l'h a t is Cin e Mr. Higd a y, you go ah e ad a nd say-- MAYOR OTIS: Just a minute, sir. Councilman Higday? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: We are in litigation with Physical Whims ica l and I think it was important that Hr. Brown identify himself in • I • • • • • • -5- that regard for the rest of th e observers h ere . B ec~use of th~t f aclor , the Council probably should not respond to anything he s a ys this evening, and if it wish es to respond to do so wi t hin that litigation. Th a t is not to s a y that Mr. Brown should not b e afforded any opportunity he wants thi s eve ning, t o make wha tever st ateme n t h e wishes to . My r ecommendntion t o the Council would be not to make any respons e here , but rather wit hin the litigation that was filed two weeks ago. RICH~RD BROWN: Th a nk you Mr . Ol sen . Th at is a n int eresting bit of advice. The litigation that was instituted , of which you h ave been provided copies of certain of the summons a nd complai nt, and motion s by City Attorn e y, Ol se n, d en l t wi h a specific issur . Th a t specifi c iss ue was: Wh et h er or nol the l ice nse grdnl J by you, a nd wh en l s.1y you, I include you, Mr. Higday, as well as each of the other members o f t he Council,--granted by you, took a valuable property right from Physical Whims ical . Tha t l a wsuit dealt specifi c a l l y with the p arking lol adja cent to 33 15 South Oro au way . ll did not· add r ess , al thi'l t ti m , the iss u es t h at woul d be r~i se d this ev~ning as it would b0 --undoubt 0 dly b0 premature . Th a t lawsuit result e d in a he a ring before Judge Beckm an in Arapa ho e County, a nd ;Jt thilt time , thr> Court made ;1 d t~r min at i o n. 11 determined th a t there was a threat of immediate and irreparable harm to b e oc ca sioned to Physical Whims i c a l, Inc. Notwithst a nding the fact tha t the temporary restraining order that was granted by Judge Beckman was su bs eq u e n t ly dissolved by virtue of Physical Whimsic a l's failur e to pos l a $1 million bond , did not alter the fact that the Court made a determination of irreparable harm. You should have been cognizant of the fa c t t hat on ce the Court was able to make a finding of irreparable harm that it , by inference, if not by actual statement, indicated that the Cit y, a nd each of you named defendants had violated a property right which had inur e d to the benefit of Physical Whimsical. Now, what you are seeking to do, and it is outside the issues of that litigation at this time , is to again avoid a responsibility of which you have been vested. Your responsibility is not simply, Mayor Otis, to carte blanche accept Mrs. Powers statements of good faith negotiations. In fact, it is contrary , Mr. Mayor, to something that you stated three weeks ago, When t he matter was tabled at the request of Mr. Paysinger, as to the determinati on of good faith negotiations, you indicated, Mr. Mayor, that the matter would be tabled until the 30th--this evening, at which time the Council would consider whether or not good faith negotiations had occurred. I challenge you to review the agreement for disposition and redevelopment between Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and Brady Development Corporation, and s. Bud Brady at Section 1.2, upon which Mrs. Powers relies. And it st ate s: "The Authority and the City shall review the e v i dence of good faith negotiation. "Where is your review, Mr. Higday , Mayor Otis, of the good faith negotiations with Physical Whimsical. Where is your review in accordance with the agreement under which you all e dge to be bound. I challenge you, Members of the Council and Mr . Mayor to respond to your obligations to review and determin e good faith negotiations. Let's take for example, the good faith negotiations evi denced by Br a dy Development Corporation and s. Bud Brady as pertains specifi cally to Physical Whimsical. Specifically, Mrs. Powers states that the Urb an Re newal Authority resolved on April 25, 1984 that pursuant to Sec ti on 1.2 of the redevelopme nt agreement good faith negotiation s h ad co ncluded and that Brady had complied with its and his requirements. Allow me to explai n what occurred on April 24. At my request, a me eti ng I • • - • • • • ,. • -6- was fin al ly established with Mr. Paysinger, Mr. Dan a Strout, who is council to Brady in the litigation that was filed by Physical Whimsi cal , Mr . Zuckerman, who is principal in Physical Whimsic al , and Mr. Klinem an , an other principal of Physical Whimsical. The meeting occurred in Mr. Pa ysinger 's office , at which time it was ma de abundantly cle a r , th a t a n y neg o tiat ions at that point in time in view of the litigation that ha d be en ini tiated would have to b e handled by Mr. Strout, as council to Brady. Mr. Pa ysirrger was a host of the me eti ng, but was a very pol it e l is tener. This wa s supposted to be the good faith negoti at ion, and it coul d be the only thing that Mrs. Powers relies on in h er mi srepresentation. I dare say, to the Council, that good faith negotiations occurred. Mr. Higd a y smiles. Mr. Higday, I suppect th at you don't own a v a luable piece of property in the area to be condemn ed and that you, sir, are not going to be affected by this effort. It is not quite as entertaining to those property owners, Mr. Higday, that you believe it is. Specifically, that meeting occurred following the take or l ea v e i t offe r that I referred to at the last mee ti ng erom Mr. Paysinger. You will r ecall that I t e nd ered to you, Mayor Otis, a nd to the Council, a copy of Mr. Paysi nger's letter that had been received that day. It said, You h a v e 10 days , Physic al Whimsic al., to accept our offer. Our generous offer is $10.00, and we'll throw in $50,000 for relocation expenses, and we 'r e such gr at uitous individuals (Brady is) that we will off er to return to you your $15,000 security deposit, that had been deposited with the la ndlord, Englewood Plaza, Limited, at the time the lease was entered into and by the conveyance to Brady, he exceeded to that $15,000 deposi t allegedl y b ased on an appraisal issued by Joseph Farber and Company on April 2, 1984, where Mr. Farber provides one paragraph of analysis for concl us io n a n d a lot of pages of assumptions, limiting conditions and credentials . Mr. Farber concluded in his appraisal, that the leasehold inte r est of 3315 South Broadway, owned by Physical Whimsical, Inc. had a value of zero. Unique! It's undisputed by anybody, Mr. Farber included, Mr. Br ad y, Mr. Strout, Mr. Paysinger that the square foot rental being p ai d by Physical Whimsical is $3.48 per foot, presently. Interestingly enough , you can 't get space like that for $3.48 a foot today. Physical Whimsical has attempted to do so. The going rate for some 36,000 square of space in that type of building, not even the locale, but that type of buil d ing--wh ere ever , is between $6 and $7.50 per square foot. Physical Whimsical has endeavored to find alternate space to relocate its business at what ever price. It has gone as far north as lOOth street; it has gone south; it h as gone east; it has gone west, and nowhere can it find rental space at that price, or anywhere close to it. So wh at did we do? We met with Mr. Paysing er and Mr. Strout last Tuesday explained this to t hem. We said, we'll tell you wha t we will do. We won't ask for a dime, j ust mov e us. Just mov e the business. You move it at your own negotiated price. We'll give you the opportun ity to find us a location. All we want to do is hav e the right of approval to be sure it is a location where there are a lot of kids--something like Englewood. It do e sn'L h a v e to be Engle wood, it could be in Arv adn , Westminster , Sou t h Glenn, North Glen n, we are not particular, as long as there is some accessibility a nd a good young population. We said, you find it, you pay t he d ifC renc P in the rent, don't p ay us an ything, we are not looking for money, a ll we want to do is relocate the business. If you can move it Cor $20,000 , you move it. If it cost you $70,000, you move it . We explained the fixed improvements that were in the location that have to b incurred for furniture, fixtures and equipment that was immovable. It I • • • • • • -7- co uldn't be r e placed. You couldn't pick it up and take it out. Painting, you couldn't scrape the walls and liquify th e paint again, Mr. Higday . You couldn't move certain stairs and cert ain facilities th at were provided for the handicapped children, so that this facility was usab l e by all . You couldn't remov e the sprinkler syst e m that they h ad to p ut in the building. And we told them that there was approximately $130 t o $145,000 in the improvements that would be lost, totally. How is th at bei ng compensated ·for? Mr . Strout, at that mee ting, polit e ly liste n e d, a nd I s a id , Mr. Strout , lets talk conceptually. Let's talk not hard dollars, but do you agree with the concept of negoti ati ng th e valu e of this proper ty,the fair market value of the property, and the cost to reloc ate , rhe cost o f th e improvements. Mr. Strout said, I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Brown , I he ar what you ar e saying, I know these costs have been incurr ed . I don't hav e th e authority to tell you "yes", or "no",_but I'll go b ac k to Mr. Richurd Whi t ing to d terminc wh et h er or. not-th"'s" co nsi dc r ilt i o n s reapp ropri ate . Mr. Paysinger politely listened. No response was mad e . We e v ide nc e d that th e dif(er e nce in the rent that would h a ve to b e p ai d Cor any lo catio n, and th e cos t of the improv e me nt s might a ppro ac h a h a l( million dollars. The response was, "But that is not in the budget." Mr. Strout said, "th at isn't in the budget." But Mr. Br a dy bought that property knowing what the lease provided. He knew percisely what Physical Whims ical was paying in rent, he reviewed and bought the le a se; and he chose to do so. He chose to do so under the guise of benef iting the public of Englewood. He did so under the guise of urban renewal, knowing that this property was not designated for acquisition. He chose to do so, and he chose to do so because he put the keystone of the project in property that was not yet designated and he backdoored you. He backdoored everyone of you by stating specifically that without this project without this corner without the corner of King Soopers the project cannot work. But why wasn't King Soopers put in one of the areas that was designated originally for acquistion. Why wasn't King Soopers put in an area that was available at that time for condemnation. Why did he wait until the end when the whole plan was done two years have gone b y, monies h a v e been expended, plans had been relied on we saw three weeks ago , four weeks ago, pretty pictures, drawings and plats and plans and specs of this downtown redevelopment. All hinging according to Mr. Brady and Mr. Strout, Hr. Paysinger, and Mr. Whiting on this property that i sn't yet within the plan and then they rush us into these good faith negotiations. Three weeks ago they deliver the appraisals and we all have to run out and try to get appraisals done because we have to have something to respond to. We had to hav e a document and that's how you ne got iate. A document comes first, an offer comes first and then you ma ke a counteroffer and they come back with a counter to that. Yet we did not have anything until three weeks ago. We had engaged an appraiser after that me eti ng who has indicated to us several things. Number 1 is that h e can 't co n cl ud that Mr. Farber's appraisal is re a sonable bas ed on the inf ormation contained therein. The data in this document may not necessarily be reliable . That Ms. Powers undoubtedly reached that conclusio n. l challenge Ms. Powers to respond. How did Urban Ren e wal conclude the reasonableness of the appraisal at zero? Mr. Chase has similarily indicated that he has not had an ample opportunity to complet e a full appr i sal, a fair market value for the property. Yet we are rushed inlo this nd tho Council is adopting Urban Ren e wal 's I • • - • • • • -8- representa tion of this good faith n eg otiations withou t ample opportuni ty to so enter into negotiations. After the meeting of the 24th with Mr. Strout and Mr. Paysinger, I didn't hear a word til today when I called Mr. Strout's office and I said, "Dana, what's going on, I haven't heard from you?" and he said, "Well, we're not going to make another offer , you guys wanted a half million doll ar s. We'r e still at 50, fi f ty thousand dollars for relocation." I said, "Dana are you going to show up toni ght?" "No, Boq Paysinger will be there, I don't need to show up." Kn owing that a pparently on the 25th, the day after our meeting tha t Ms. Powers had concluded that good faith negotiations had occurred. I cha llenge the City to comply with the minimum requirements of the a greement. I challenge the City to comply with the minimum requirements to determine that number 1 good faith negotiations had occurred and number 2 that Physical Whimiscal, 3315 South Broadway, fits within the parameter s of a blighted area . I haven't heard any evidence relative to the st at utory requirements. And I challenge Ms. Powers to stand befor e t he Council and you, Mayor Otis, to state under the provisions of th e r eloc a tio n h a ndbook that says, the Authority sh all from time to time dete r mi ne a current definiti o n of fair market value as is generally used by the co u rts oE the State of Color a do, appro ved by thP Color ado Supr e me Court . Ms. Powers has counsel pres e nt. I find it unique under any theory that that particular statement can be supported. We talked about whether or no t the amendment is necessary and beneficial. When you or your predecessors on the Council had adopted the redevelopment plan did you anticipate the necessity of the sixth amendment? Was it repr esented to you at that time that the keystone project was King Soopers and that pr operty was not designated for acquisition? Or were you similarly mislead? Ar e you pawns in this action? Are you going to accept or co ndon e this acti on? I challenge you to stand up be counted have your voice be h eard that you will not accept this type of action by a privat e developer for private gain. Sure, you can say the City will tendgenderly benefit in the long run, but what threat is being held over your head th at the project will conclude, it will cease at this time unless this keystone corner is initiated. That what percipitated that license being issued. That is what percipitated the lease being entered into by you altering and effecting the property rights of Physical Whimiscal and others at 3315 South Broadway by the destruction of that parking lot. You kn e w the existence of irreparable injury, yet you decided to go along. I ask you now to stop going along. I ask you to make the findings if they exist on competent evidence and if you do make those findings that this area is blighted, that there have been good faith negotiations, then stand up to them, but don't hide behind a shield of the Urban Renewal Authority, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. MAYOR OTIS: Mr. Edward B. Lee. EDWARD LEE: Your Honor and members of the Council, I'm EdLee a nd I 'm here tonight again on b e h alf of Ted Vallas who owns Ted's Custom Clothes , 33 West Girard. I'm Ted's attorney. I've been practicing in Englewood for 15 1/2 years and I'm native of Englewood having been born on South Log a n approximately 40 years ago. And I must say that in my e xistence as a human being I know of no insta nces in wh ich the City o( Englewood has let businesses be destroyed by a private developer. And I trust that 's not going to happen this time. I do question whethe r or not this property is truly within, is truly a blighted within the meaning of • I • • • • • • -9- the Urban Ren e wal statute in the St ate of Color ado . And I suppose we could debate that all night which I don't intend to do. But I think the Council aught to give serious cons ider ation to whether or not his property does qualify for inclusion into an Urban Renewal Authority before it votes. I don't want to argue good faith or lack of good faith bec a us e your Honor has told us that that is irrelev a n t tonight. I woul d l ike to ment ion just one point however regarding our negotiations and that is that we tQo did not receive, we met last Thursday and received a n offer which wa s higher than their initial final offer. We he a rd ab solutely nothing from them until 10 minutes befor e this meeting took place tonight and that time they did make another offer. We're still aways apart. We may have it settled, but we may not. I'm not certain whether Br a dy had the authority to make the offer and I 'm not certain whether or not because the Council has determined good faith negotiations have occurred that the offer can even be made by Brady at this time, but we will continue to negotiate in good faith with whoever we are suppose to negotiate with and attempt to arrive at a satisfactory solut i on. CIT~ ATTORNEY OLSEN: Mr. Le e did you mea n because the Urb a n Re n e wal Au t hority h ad made that det e rmination rather th a n Council, tho ugh t tha t you had just •.. EDWARD LEE: Yea, the record should be corrected. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Mr. Brown, you had mentioned ••• COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW: Mr. Lee COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Mr. Lee, I'm sorry, excuse me. Mr. Lee you mentioned t he time involved her e . You'r e alittle bit unclear, you'r e not saying the first offer you received was 10 days ago. EDWARD LEE: No. As I mentioned at the last Council meeting on this subject we had received first and final offer and were given until April 20th. We met, we rejected that offer and counteroffered and I won't go into numbers because I think they are irrelevant. We did receive another offer on, I think, April 24th, at which time we had our first real negotiating session. I would urge the Council if necessary to consider amending the EURA guidelines to provide more to these business owners that those guidelines currently provide. It's my understanding that they are entitled to the value of their leasehold interest plus relocation expenses not to exceed $10,000 except in extreme cir cumstances. I don't know what extreme circumstances are, but I know ever yon e of these merchants and bus i ness own ers who is not settled must have e x tr eme circumstances because I don't know one of them that can com e cl ose to reloc ati ng his business for $10,000 plus the value of his leaseholding. It's simply impossible. You're talking loss of profits. You'r e tal kin q ta king a new structure and ma king your leasehold improvements nd a ny of you who h a v e businesses of your own know how te ntat i ve that is. And I think that the Council can continue to protest these people by considering amending those guidelines if necessary. Cou nc il clearly has the duty in my opinion and I'm sure the citizens of the City of Engle wood would also agree to assure th at the EURA now tr eats these four remaining business owners fairly. I think that you all ought to put yourselves in these owners shoes. If it were your business what • I • 0 • • • - -I I- pr oblems out on price. There is no reason the City with its Urban Renewal Authority and its City power needs to give a private developer that extra clout to where a private developer can go to each and ev ery on e of these tenants and say take it or leave it. This is my l a st o ffer . T make one or two offers. If you don't like, fine, I'll just hand it ov er to the City or to the Urban Renewal Authority. I 'l l get this whole pr oblem out of my ~air. That's letting off somebody too early. Now th is whole instanc e we h a v e now h ad two or thr ee times t h at this h as b ee n sug gested; and proposals and amendments have been forthcoming . And we ap preciate the difficulty that the City has b ee n pla ced in. There hav e been changes since 1982, of course that has. And this now because of th e cha ng ed circumst ~nces in the City of Englewood ma y ul t im ate ly result in some sort of ben e fit to the City people, and I'm sur e that you are all acting with that in mind . The problem is that you're being mislead. You're acting too quickly and you're are being given f a lse deadlines and fal se ideas ab out the ramifications if you do not tak e .this actio n a nd make the amendme nt tonight . Wh at is ma gi c abo u t toniqht? You'v e c.Jeferrc~d it attll deferred it befor e . You h a v e one story a bout n e gotiiltions. I will no t: go int·o dct i1 il a bout figur es . I will n ot C)C't into dctai 1. L would only sa y that unlik e oth er ten .:111ts my clie nt still have not even s ee n a copy of the appraisal . I have asked for that twice. We haven't even been given a copy of a summary. We are told and given one f igu r e and then we are--have a meeting subsequently where we are told verbally that that figure isn't even good and that now the appraisal doesn 't e ven show that and yet we haven't seen the appraisal . We h ave n o t be en give n a n opportunity for consideration of anything other than a lease and som e form of moving expense. Why is that? That is becaus e the developer in this case is using you all as a backup and saying ultima tely I ca n just g el rid of the problem and we think that you al l are bein g used and that you all should not commit the City that's trying to do good for its citi z en s to be used and very productive tenants that could mak e this whole th i ng work are being harmed and are being asked to cut down their prices, are being asked to be put in a situation of like or lump it . We also were old this is our final offer. And it's coincidence. I had not heard the story of Physical Whimiscal before tonight. But it is very coi ncid enta l that we also told "w ait a minut e , we've got to check our buc.Jgets." Now that is not a st a tement of wh at 's fair and what's not fair. It's a statement of what do we want to spend on this. How can get the margin down of the ten a nts so we can show to City Council that we are doi ng something. I would like the City Council to also, I interpret the ag reement as to requiring some sort of review by this City Counc il . Som e sort of at least asking of questions of the Urban Renewal Authoity, "d id you have any documents?" "what was the b asis of the ap pr aisa l?" "can we rel y on this ppraisal?" "h as the a ppr a ised values changes?" I don't thi nk an y of these questions a nd p ert inent questions a re being asked. We were not even as ked to the meeting of EURA. We have no idea what documents may or may not have been submitted. We have no idea about wh at one-sid d slaleme n ts have b een made to EUR A n bout wh at went on in negotiati ons. Now so far we have been doing all the production of the docum nts . We have supplied all of the documents substantiating all of the impro v ements wh ich have been sizeable that have been put into that place . We h ave been asked to substantiate every item and am oun t of expense. We ha v e not seen one item of substantiation from the other side . And all we ask is,"let's see something on the side. Let's really get in a nd ask what sort of negoti at ion." We 'r e not saying , "h ang up • I • • - • • • • -12- because of the developer." We're saying, "w ait a minute, Urban Ren e wal Authority the Cou ncil about what went on ann what really is going on in the negotiations before we're go ing to give you carte blanche to start dealing with them when two privat e parties ought to b e able to rpsolv e thei r own prob lems ." Things might b e diff erent in different situat i on s wh ere there 's lawsuit s pending, where there is obv ious animosity or inabilit y or being way far apart . That's not the case here . An d that's not necessarily tHe case with most of the tenants on this block and in this area . I think if the Council would start asking what these tenant s have reall y atte mpted to do, I think they over al l would find out thes e te na nt s are not out to make a buck. These tenants aren 't seeing huge dollar signs. Th e y're just trying to come out re a sonab l y whol e . Now we kno w tha t you're und er guidelines. Of co u r se , you are . And we know th~L not every lit t le bit of subjec ti ve problems, concerns, headaches can b e compensated. We know that too. But here you are de ali n g with a piec e o f property that was bought by a private developer a nd no~ in a last mlnut P fash ion , and this was co n templated , this was c los ed January , and now we d on 't get a l et ter , we don 't even g e t a commencement of n eg otiation s until Ma rch. And now all of a sudden the y'r e thro wing the City Council t o wa n t ing on April 30 , l ess than 30 days from any a pprais a ls [rom b e ing attai ned wh ich we haven't even seen to go and taking it on thems elves and taki ng it on to the Urban Renewal Authority to try to handle this mess which still there is no showing that couldn't be resolved by Br a dy himself if th at pressure was put to beare. Now I was not h ere at the last meeting because I atte nded two other meetings that were closed. understo od that the last meeting was also a directive giving time for Brady a nd in fact enco uraging Brady and maybe coming on a little strong er than that s aying "we want some good faith negotiations". That's also in the agr e ement. A b as ic t e nant saying, "wait a minut e , b efor e you involve the City, let's s omething productive, then if you're at the very end of your rope, OK, we'll help you out because it's in the good--best int erest. Th at 's not the case here. Nobody's at the end of the ir rope except we're at a point where Brady feels they can come to the City Council and us e you as their last straw and use you to knuckle t e nants un der. I'd like you all to be able to ask also the tenants that haven't settled. Why is it that these tenants are coincidentally the on es that haven 't settled. You will find th at the ones that haven't settled are the very ones that poured in the most into leasehold improvements. You will find that the y are the ones that have the most to lose and are the tri ckiest negotiations and are operating businesses that are rather difficult to evaluate . And yet those are the ones that they show are the trouble ones. The ones that are difficult to appraise. The ones that a re to settle and that can't b e taken here. Take it or leave it. It requir es a little bit mor e delicat negotiation. And so wh at ar e they doing . Putting it onto a City authority. I don't think that is the proper way. I don't think it is the way it is designed to acquaint or to accomplish what was really desired by all parties. And that it let's get on wi th the project. City 's d ete rmined it is a good project. It can work, but let's get it on in a way that doesn't create animosity that does n't create undu e hardship and that justly compensates people that doesn 't mak e it too easy for someone just to bail out and shove the pr oblem onto someone else. I would also like to point out that I, your Honor , I understand what you Honor said about the guidelines being used today . I hav e question whether or not the Council and your Honor may s imply c~rt bl a nche assume that c rtain things have gone on wi thout • I • • - 0 • • • • • -1 3- re ally asking about those good faith negotiat i ons. There's be e n n o evidence presented. There's been no statements. I don't know i f yo u have been given any of the documentation or subst a n t iation of wh at 's gon e on in these difficult negotiations. I am interested. I t h ink you all i ntelluctually ought be interested before you ta k e a ste p t hat p e r mi ts t he negotiation and your Honor asked a question abou t what would h a p pen with the negotiation. That's exactly right what would happen with t he negotiation. Brady's out of it. No more responsibility. COUNCIL MEMBER NE~L: Mr. Ma yor. WILLI~M LAHEY: Yes . COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: I apologize for stopping you Mr. Lahey. WIL LI AM LAHEY: That's fine . COUN C LL MEMBER NEAL: You'r e ma king a n e x ce ll e n t p r~se n tnt i o n but y o u're c o v er ing ground two, and three, and four time s. WlLLIAM LAHEY: So the other item that I would like to cov e r is th e parking lot. We would join in and 3370 is right across the s treet from the parking lot. That is old ground . We never heard any notice. I t i s now c a using us an absolut e in a b i lity to hav e cus t omers com e . Th ere ar e no parking places. I think th e City should or could have been a war e of that. They should or could have been previously advised. I don't know what the advice is or was. I don't know under what Authority. I'm not even chall e nging that, apparently that's even the subject of a lawsuit that 1 don 't want to get into. I would just like to say th a t a s a r e sult of th a t now. That is also complete changed the status of whatever negotiations might have gone on and I think it was premature and it is now caus e d us to be in a situation where we are going to have to close down the operations of this business . There are only two parking spaces available. We can not do anything else legally, parking legally. And it has caused a substantial change in the position of the parties in n e goti a tion a nd a substantial loss to my client . Thank you. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Hr. Mayor. I wanted to--the issue of parking came up. There is public parking in and quite a bit of public parking within the 400 feet that zoning allows to service any of the a reas downtonw. I know that the Department of Community Development is going to be releasing a letter that isolates the considerable amount of public parking t hat remains in the area. WILLIAM LAHEY: OK, where is that? COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Chamber of Commerce building is the block n orth of Floyd. WI LLIAM LAHEY: OK, I will retract then, if that's the case • Th e r e ma y b e o t h e r available, but c e rtainly not right across the street. And that is s ubstantially different at night time with a restaurant and people walking in an area that's under construction. And it has caused a problem. Tha t 's all. We wish also for the Council to be aware of it. Th a nk you • • I • • • • • MAYOR OTIS: OK, the next name on the list, I can't read the first name, the last name is Rich. LARRY RICH: Your Honor a nd memb ers of the Council, my n a me i .• La rry Rich. I'm an attorney. I represent Man 's world and Gene Iss c n. I'm going to endeavor not to repeat all of the statements made by my pr edece ssors here at the podium, however, there has not been one speaker yet today th at I have not been in complete agreement with as it relates t o our sitaution as well. I am certainly appalled as been other peopl e a t this podium concerning the finding of good faith n eg otiations, es pecially considering that no one had ever taken the time to call Mr. Issen or myself to discuss wheth er we hav e in fact b een n e gotiated with • in good faith. No one has asked us that, uh, that, uh our discussions o f releasing space in the premises have fallen on deaf ears. No one has asked us or discussed with us how our claim for specific damages totally ct i scoun t in some cases. We are one of those companies still in 11 C'got i.1t ion. We will b e on or tho s e compa ni es th ttt will ultima t e ly co111L' to il g ree •n e nl a ltho ug h we are thousands of dollars aport . l (eel as ot h e r s h o v e s l .tl"e d th <tt the 13r o dy Corpor a tion is usin<J th~> City Coun c i 1 and the Urbdn Renewal Authority as their rubber stamp. I can't expect that anyone of you people could retain your positions as working for the City if the constitutency determined yes in fact your actions constituted a rubber stamp to the development. The development is one thing I would l ike to deal with specifically now. Your Honor, you mentioned at the beginning of this meeting that we're here to decide two things. One is i t necessary to include the properties in the current development and two is it benefical to the City. I submit to you I have heard nothing. No e vidence presented by anyone indicating this property could in fact be n e cessary to include the property and in fact the redevelopment plan that was negotiated and entered into by the Brady Corporation and the City did not include this particular block or Mr. Issen's premis es at 3365 South Broadway. It seems to me that if a plan makes sense without the i nclusion of this block why all of a sudden is it now necessary to inclu d e it. The only reason that I can determine is it must be the flow of things. We gotten this building in this block, let's go to the next n nd the next and the next and the n e xt and ultimately try to bring new buildings and new properties to the City of Englewood. While the concept I agree with, let's really look at it in terms of whether or not the City finds it necessary. The businesses in Englewood provide part of the tax base for the City of Englewood to operate. My client pays a significant a mount of sales tax to this City. As he indicated before he was enticed to come back into Englewood by Mr. Kaufman, Fred Kaufman of Kaufman's Me ns Wea r. I think you all know th e type of revenues, sales tax revenues , that Mr. Kaufman ability to generate for and on behalf of the City . My client Mr. Issen has a business that is the perfect complement to Mr. Kaufman's business in that between the two of them, they can provid e clothing to virtually to any male in an y size. Mr. Issen h<~s no t iced since h e has moved here that the concept is working and his s a les are generating tremendous revenues for the City and they will continue to do so. I hav e heard no evidence from anyone as to how many years a new business being put into Mr. Issen's current location, how many years it will t a k e tha t n w business to g nerate the same type of revenues it is generating today , especially in light of the higher rents that are project e d for that type of property. And I believe that the sales taxes • I • • - • • • • -15- gene r ated now a nd that are projected will far surp ass a ny r e v enues th al might come at a later time when measured in today's dollars. No on e has indicated to me or to the Council, the Mayo r that new is bet ter . Why does new have to b e better. The premises are ther e . They are soun d . Th ey are leased up. They are not old. Th ey are filled with busin es s•s ge nera t ing mon e y. I see no testimony b efore her e th e Co unci l that ind ic ate s anything to the contrary. Why is it beneficial? Becaus e it 's ne w? I submit to you that that is not e nough reason. Ag ain, ou r negotiati ons have come from a posture that negotiations from Br ady to us. The y have not come in a posture of hey, we 'r e sorry, we're hurting your bu siness, we'd li ke to make you whole; but rather why should we spend more , we get it condemned we don't hav e to pa y anything . And wh at ha ppens in Mr. Issen's case , if the prop ert y is condemned, the provi sion in his lease indicates that any condemnation award belongs to the la ndlord that is Mr. Br a dy. So Urb a n Renew al is going to negoti ate a some oE money to give us and Mr. Br ad y is go i ng to g et . Th at 's no t fair. 'rhat 's n ot ri g ht . · Ml\ YO R o•r IS : The next name on the l i st Meli nda Wetzs ell . MELiNDA WBT~SELL: Council a nd Mr. Mayor . My na me is Melinda Wet zs ell . I'm th e own er of Other Mo thers ' Store in the downtown 3400 bl ock of downtown. I'm a new bus iness own e r in Englewood and I'm new to the politics of Englewood. But I'm not so new as a citizen of Engl e wood. I chose to do my business in downtown Englewood not only because my fa mily is here but because I like the feel of downtown. Of having a do wntown as op po sed to a plastic shoppette or shopping center. But also at least in my type of store , it's a budget store and that's the economy tha t's in Englewood. It 's not a healthy enough economy to support the type o f businesses I feel that can afford $12-$18/square foot . I was told when I was lookinq for buildings I looked in the 3300 block, I was told t hat was go ing to b e knocked down. Hr. Brady himsel f quoted me that that those prices will be at least that high for the new shoppette, and I g uess I am wondering what is the purpose, of course , I'm beqinninq 3400 block i sn't safe too from this type of development, but I'm wonderinq what type of businesses would be drawn to Englewood with that kind of rent, and wi ll you not in fact have some very nice looking 1 /2 to 1 /3 empty shoppettes when this is all done. MAYOR OTIS: Barry Coleman. BARRY COLEMAN: Mr. Mayor, I'll decline to speak. pu t in my name in case somebody forgot something. I was--just MAYOR OTIS: I have no others on the list that signed up to speak. Is there anybody--George Allen. GEORGF. ALLEN: I did sign up, but I don't know what happened to it . MAYOR OTIS: \~ell, you signed up, but you only put yourself down as observer . But if you wish to speak the podium is yours. GF.ORGE ALLEN: I would like to say a word or two. MAY OR OTlS: Please come u~ . I • • • • • • -16- GEORGE ALLEN: Your Hon or , I th o ught I wrote down there as neutral , but the reason I wanted to speak to you for a moment , I've listened to all of these speakers and the y all put forth a good effort . The reason I wanted to speak to you briefly, cord. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: Tell us wh o you are just for th e re - GEORGE ALLEN: Well , OK, George II. Allen, 2799 S o uth Downing , Eng lewood, Colorado. I represent t he Englewood Ch amber of Commerce, the n e w City of Englewood Chamber of Commerce. We're getting alot of people coming to talk to us about this problem and it seems that every - body ha s th e opinion t h dl th e proj c l, r<.'<l<'Vl'lopl'l l'n l, i s qoinq Lo qo , and I don't think they're arg uin g that too much . But the thing is b eing bro ught to us a nd discussed is very simp le . They feel th ey ar e being rail roaded and gi v e n ultimatims on offers for renegotiating leaseholds and s o forth and they feel lik th e y 're in it by themselves and nobody hils th e ir· ini C't'<'SI <lL-he.:1rt. /\nrl I think Lhis i s tnt<' l n ;r th'qr·o o. 1\ul l wo uld J ik e Lo ru<.~k e a suqqestion to th Cily that we monitor these nc'qo tiirLion s ."l ncl ~;t'C' iust how fuir· l:h y arc' ;rntl iust wh u t· is qninq on . And l Lhink the ~eople would feel alot bett r dbouL it and 1 think we would get mo re fair appraisals. And as far as an offical appraisal is concerned , I think anybody that's ever had an experience with it realize the appraisals go pretty much the way th e guy 's paying for it want it to go . So all I 'm aski n g is could we establish some form of monitor i n g system and see if can 't get into this and let people feel like we at lea st ha ve their interest at heart. Thank you very for that opportunity to mak e a statement to this effect . please . MAYOR OTIS: Anyon e else? Come forward a n d identify yourself PAUL LEWAN : My name is Paul Lewan. I'm the owner of the old firs t national bank building which under discussion tonight . I hadn't pla nned to make a statement but I should make a few points clearer to the Council . I'm not attorney, obviously, I'm a businessman. I don't have businesses i n the building but I have tenants in the bu ildin g . I h a v e owned the building for approximately 10 years. There a couple of things I would like to discuss. I've not met Ms. Powers personally. I 've talked to her o n the phone, but, she's been cooperative with me, but, she never made any attempt to call me , she knows wh ere I am, to say do yon feel that you 've been negotiated with in good faith terms with the Brady Corporation. I do not feel li ke I have been n egotiated with in qood terms with this organization. I've talked to Mr. Paysinger, even though I've not met him, but I feel if their position is has been stated tonight. We've got the power behind us on the Urban Renewal, Lewan, here 's your figure, take it or leave it, if we don't feel like it, I'll qe t the job done throug h Urban Renewal, so that is what their position o bviously is. Secondly , they give me an offer . I have tenants in the building with leases. So they offer gave us is we want the property free of the leases. So leave me with the burden of trying to negot iate and have to face lawsuits. I hav e the Eagles down in the basement. I don't • I • • • • • • -17- if your ge ntlemen know the Eagles, the y'r e tough . And they've got an attorney that says that they're going to sue all the wa y to the Supreme Court on that lea se. So Brady says, "heck, I don't need to worr y about that lease , Mr. Lewan, that's your responsibility." Hr. Paysi n ger told me himself if I don 't negotiat e the lea se with the Eaqles , h e say s , the Urban Rene wa l will say that's you r problem . We 'll g ive you a price and out of the price we'll give you the building, you will have to nego tiate with the"Eagles. Now I don't know what I'm goi ng t o be up against. I may come out in a terrible pickle dealinq with the Eagles for one. I'm faci n g a problem getting appraisals done. I don 't how wuickly this is going to be resolved. I'm told the building could be taken away from me and chopped down in a couple of months. I've talk ed t o some appraisers lately, They're busy . I 'v e got to ge t cranking up to get good appraisal on that because all up to now if you make this deci sion toni g ht deal with the Urban Renewal Authorit y it caused a lot of power to move very quickly , and fo~ce me t o qet an a ppraisa l , and if I don't like the appraisal, they can condemn my property , tak my prop<•rLy , LhC'n 1 h a v C' to qo throuqh a l o nq l_j tiqation of m<:~ny monlh s dca linq with thC' Courts whi ch most of you arc Hware of . Twas told by tltc 131".id y C<li"I H>ro~l i o n th.ll lil Y propt 'I"Ly h.1d l ow v;1 ILH ' i>L 't'.tli S <' I d<lll ' l have a tenant o n the first floor . Well, when you're tryin g to negotiate with t en ants, leases , and new tenants, that everyone knows the state of the project, no one is going to negotiate with you. However, I've had two very strong tenants that want to take that first floor. I can sig n a lease tomorrow for that first floor at a very favorable rate for my- self . Obviously, I don't want to do that. It's not fair to an incomin g te nant. But , also , here I sit and I'm told my property is not very val uabl e becaus e I don't have a t e nant on the first floor. But I do have a tenant on that first floor. I have a price that was offered to me on that building a number of years ago that's just about the price they 're offering to me now. I believe the City of Englewood is a good place . I bought the building because I felt it was a good proj ct. I 've enjoyed the building. I agree with some of the attorneys tonight. I 'd like to stay in the project. I'd like to keep my building there. It 's in good condition. If the City thinks it needs some fixing up, T 'll fi x it up some mor e . I think it is a good building. I s<:~id t o the Brady Corporation, that's a good piece o~ real estate . You find me a comparable building like that 25,000 square feet, well constructed on a piece of property that comparable. I don't need to be in downtown Denve r. Just find me something comparable to that building. I'll trade yo u. I'm trying to impede the progress of the City of Englewood. If the City feels this is qood movement for the City and this is the di- rection they should t a k e I wi ll support, but I wanted to be treated fa irly , and at this point I don 'L think I 'm bcinq Lrealcd fairly. I think it would be a smart thing to defer this decis ion tonight and ask Susan to sec wh ere these good fait h negotiations , wh ere do they show. I think you hav e a perfect reason to ask for those qood faith negotiations, don 't Y<•u think so . ll ccausC' w don't fe e l we 've bcPn <lt•ult with in t·hut· way. That 's th e only statement. I don't plan on saying anything tonight, but I'm glad I carne. I appreciate seeing your City Council and seeing who is on the City Council , and I appreciate the comments. I agree with thr comments that have b een made by th e attorneys tonight. Thank you very much . • I • • • • •' • -18- MAYOR OTIS: Anyone else? CITY ~\ANAGER MCCOWN: Your Honor, ju st for the record , I 'd l ike to ask Ms. Powers, would you state for the record the boundari es of t h e Urba n Ren e wal area . Gen e rall y ,. DIRECTOR POWERS: It would help if I could ge t a map. Basicall y , the northern most part west of Broad way as Floyd. And then it goes n or th o n Broadway to I believe Eastman , do you have a map? Let me start o n the we st. I includes Cinderella City on the west is t h e railroad track . On the nort h er n part it 's Floyd . It qoes over to nroad way and t h e n over ilctually to th nroadwuy /\coma a ll y . Jt qoos up the al l ey Lo I~ast 111 il n . 'J 'hun yous ei.ls l o n Easlman over Lu Ll w l ll "<>.ldwc~y L.i ncuJ n "I 1<'\ It goe s all the south to Hampd en Avenue . Goes east t o Sherman down Sherma n to th e alley behind Safeway, the new Safewa y store. Goes east o n that alley o v e r to LOgan and then e ast alon9 Jefferson 285 down to Clarkson and goes south o n Clarkson to e nc o mp ass the en t ire ball fie ld f o r Enql e wood ll iqh School. T h en not·th and fo ll o ws th boundut·y o f the high school and follows J eff e rson all the way up t o 285 and th e n q<H 'S wr •s l ovt •t t o Lit o tt·c~i n Lrncks <t<(<lin . CITY MANAGER MCCOWN : Are the properties bein g con s idered here tonight within that area? DIRECTOR POWERS : Yes, they are. They 've been in that area sin ce 19 82 when it was adopted. MAYOR OTIS: I have t h e name of Ms . R . E. Evans as an observer. Did this person wish to spea k to Council tonight? ~1RS. EVANS: No. MAYOR OTIS: How about Margaret Manning? MRS. MANNING: No . MAYOR OTIS: Anyone else? LARRY RICH: Again , Larry Rick, attorney for Gene Issen. I've heard the description of the boundaries that were adopted and I wou ld have j ust one question with respect to that and that question is this, Cinder ella City shopping center is included, the new First Nationa l Bank is included, I can't think off the top of my head think of other projects , but, yes, t h o s e propertie s are within the boundaries. ll o w could you conceivably think that those properties should be destroyed and destroy Englewood 's tax base just because they 're with in the boundari s . It 's not enough of a reason. You nee d blight. You need benefit to the City and you n e ed n cessary und proper b ei n g included . Cinderella City is not n c cc e sary Lo dest roy thal. I realize it's n ot being co n sidered today . Yes Lhu boundaries arc great but that does not mean that every property located within a p a rticular b o und ar y s hould b included with in a ny redev lopmcnt p lan . 1\nd that 's all I have to say. CI'I'Y 1\'l'TORNEY OLSEN: Your Honor, I would, indeed , recommend s hort recess , becaus the public section h as be e n concluded und 1 know Mr. Opperman , I would like to ask Mr. Opperman a question relutinq to, if he can discuss it , his advic e to the Urban Renewal Authority during that rcc ss . • I • - • • • • -19- MAYOR OTIS: How long would you need? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: A very short time . MAYOR OTIS : We'll have a fiv e minute rcc ss . Mayor Otis reconvened the meeting and asked for roll call. All Council Me mbers were present, and Mayor Otis declared a quorum . CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Your Honor, before th e presentation o f statements is closed to, I would request and suggest to the Council Lhat it ask Susan Powers on behalf of th e Urban Re newal Authorit y to state [or the record h e re this evening what the process w~s thdt was g one through by the Urban Renewal Authority in determining and making it s recommendation to Council this eveni ng. DJRI':C'J'OR POWERS: Mayor and members of th e Co unci l , a nd mc•m!J c•r s o f th '' .t udi e n ·t•. l qu ess th c 1·e arc a f e w cnmm(•n t s ut'fnn• qo throuqh th<1t . One is that these properties h ave al ways been listed in I ll<' pl<~n , n ()l .•l w o~y s fo1 •1cquisi t·i nn !Jut· <1 lw ;1ys I ist•·d in ill<' ll.-ll.lll Rene wa l District. After careful consideration and working on th e plan fo r last fe~ years , is the Authority's feeling that the acquisition of these lea s es and property at 3311 South Broadway are required for th e i mpleme ntation o f the plan to carry o ut what is the plan to th e Cit y . As far a s the r e view of the documentation, the Urban Renewal Authority r e ceives all the appraisals that were prepared on the properties, all the offer s thal were submitted , notes from every conversation that Brady and of llrady 's attorneys or representatives had with any of these tenants in fact we rec e ived it for alot of the leases whi ch eventually were re - solved . And we 'r e glad th ey were resolved in the private sector . It was their conclusion that good faith negotiations as outlined in Section 1 .2 of t h e Red c v lopment Agreement have been met. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW: It is the Urban Renewal's? DIRECTOR POWERS: It is the Urban Renewal's recommendation. They me t for many hours reviewing the documentation last Wednesday. They re ceived it several days prior to that and they even sp ent alot of the weekend before that reviewing all the documentation and based on that they pa ssed Resolutio~ No. 13. Any questions? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: I guess I do have a question, your Honor. May I pose? With regard to the vote by the Council this evening, if the Council were to v o t e this evening on these listed prooerties were to be designated, is it your view based upon the advice of your lawyer that the se leaseholders would then be forbidden to negotiate with Brady or vice versa Brady would be forbidden to negotiate with them and that pro- c e ss would be forma lly over? DIRECTOR POWERS: That's my understanding, yes. CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: And then, ia the next step for the lease- holde rs to then e nter into new negotiations with the Urban Renewal Au- thority . DtRECTO il POWERS: That's correct . • I • • - • • • • - -20- CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: And do you have any i dea of wh at th e inL 0nl of the Ur ban Renewal Authority is with reqard to those negotiations? At this point , what procedures will be used? Or wha t mann er they wil l be taken in? DIRECTOR POWERS: Assum ing that some or all the leases wou]J be listed t onight , then the Ur ban Renewal Authority on Wednesday nig ht which is its regu lar meetin g would consider a resolution authorizing sta ff to e nt er into n egotiations with these lis ted leases . We wou ld be using as a basis the appraisals that were prepared b y Brady unless o ur staff feels we should get our own appraisal. Th e sta ff has reviewed the appraisals and feels that technically th e appraiser uses the correct procedure in comin g up with fair market value for the l ease . We have not gone back and done research on the dollar values and that will occur assuming that some decision is made within the next few days . we would then have our negotiator, Scott McD o well, who is an employee of the Ur - ban Renewal Authority contact these lease holders and property o wn ers all a nd start th e n c qotiation process aqai n bas d on th e limitntions that arc in the state l a w and the relocation handbook. Relocation and fair m<trkrl v.llu<' n l lh<' pi"O[X'r l y a r c Lwo di ff<•rcn l i ssuc•s :-~nd o ur "''q<>t·i.tlol· would be negotiati n g bas e d on the fair market value of the lease on one hand and there would b e similar negotiations based on the relocation benefits . CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: And if on the other hand the Council vo ted tonight not to accept this evening these properties to be d e signated for acquisition would Brady still then be enpowered and these leaseholders still have the opportu nity to negotiate. DIRECTOR POWERS : Yes, they do . CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: After this e v e nin g? DIRECTOR POWERS: Yes , th ey would. CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Now when you just me n tion limitation of sta te law, wh en you en t er i nto y o ur negotiation, wh en the Urban Renwa l Au thority enters into the negotiations, does the Urban Renewal Author ity have the option of offeri n g a sum significantly h igh er than the appraisa l or does it not under the constitution? DIRECTOR POWERS: The , our legal advic , tells us we can offer fai r market value which the Urban Renewal Authority has defined as the i!ppra i sc•u valtH' on Lh.1L prop<'rly , .~nd W<' ct1n nnl off<'l mn1 c' than that. CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Does Brady today have the aut hority to of fer more than the fair market value as shown in the appraisals they obta ined . DIRECTOR POWERS: Yes, he does. He can offer any amount he wishes to of[ r or can afford to offer at this time. li e is only obligated to offer th0 fair mark t value which is the appraisal in order to d •monsLt·aLc qood failh ncqotiaLions Lo the 1\uthor.ity. COUNCTL MEMDER WEIST: Could I also ask Ms. Powers one qu stion. When the leas e ho ld interest , leasehold value is mention d docs that in- clude the cos , th value, the cost of the value of the leasehold improv - ments? • I • • • • • • -:H- DIRECTOR PO\'JERS: It d e p e nds on the type of improvement and I would rath er relay that point to attorney if that's OK. COUNCIL MEMBSR WEIST: Alrig ht. MR. OPPERMAN : Your precise question is h o w the leasehold is val ued? COUNCIL MEMBE R WEIST: Riyht . Does the leas hold valu noL include not only the market va l u e of the le ase itself but all , does it i nclude a valu e for leasehold improvements? MR . OPPERMl\N: 'J'h ' VillUuLi o n of the ]e il se h o ld wo u ld 1101"111illl y be considered under two approaches. One being the simplified approach of the difference between what I have to pay the leasee versus what I ca n tur n around a nd leas e the property for as a subl ea s or or as a lraso r to another t e nant. That differential beinq cap~talizect i nto Llw pn'sC'n L wor l h o r va I u of Lh <' pres n t wort h of thos e b n 'f i ts cnul d be deemed to b mcasur of th leas hold valu e . That wo uld be very de - fini Li on in c lllol <' il n y ,)m<'nli <'S th c~L lhill l t'ti Sl'h n l<l lt-1pp<'l1 t·n h ilV<' il ll <'n<l<'ll to i t. T h e o th er methodolog y would b wh e re yo u evalua t e the e nti re val ue of the p roperty as a whol e including all the property . Yo u would sub stract from that value, the value of the lease fee or the owner's posi t ion that would b e made of two parts. The pr e sent worth of th e in come stream h e is receiving under the leases and the present worth of the reversion of the building and improvements at the end of the term of the lease. That amount, those two amounts combined toqether would constitute the lease fee position or owner's position. If you substract that from the value of the entire under economic rent, you would then have a remaining sum which would b e the lease hold position. 7\gain, tha t ma y take into consideration any of the improvements in the pro- perty that hav e been placed there . Now some of the t erms of the leas e s will require the improvements being placed on the property to be treated in a specific manner by the appraiser. Some of the leases provided that the leasehold improvements installed become the property of the leasor at the e nd of the lease . In other cases, that is not true. And the ap praiser doing the appraisal will take these various terms into con- sideration as well as the economic of the situation in evaluating that le asehold appraisal. or leasehold amounts. COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST: Could it be that the amount of money spent by a tenant would not be considered in the offer by the developer? Mn. OPPEHMl\N: Oh , T think .1ppr;:~isors <J nerillly try to con sidct· anyth ing wh ich wo uld aff e ct market va l ue. MAYOR OTIS: Councilman Neal, you had a question. CO UNC iL MEMBER NEAL: No. Mr . Opperman should identi f y h i mseli . RICHARD BRONN: Mr. Mayor, may I consider, question Ms. Powers for a mome nt ? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: I would recommend to the Council that cer t ain ly you ca n do that at any time. And are free to do so. And per- haps in a mom nL y o u can retire to the hall and do so . • I • • - • • • • -2'1.- RICHARD BROWN: I'm asking for the purposes of the record Mr. Olsen. CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Well, RICHARD BROWN: Obviously, the questions would bear o nl y on she has represented to the Council at this particular moment. CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Mr. Brown, I wo uld like t o address that issue very spec ifically . Within our litig ation as you know I c o nt acted your office as a courtesy seeking to s e t up mutual dispositions so that if you wish to take a disposition from Ms . P o w rs certain l y that is avai l able to yo u and we 'd be h appy t o do thaL Lomorrow . And in ad di- tion we sought dispositions from various principals in your business and you failed o return my calls. At this time , Sue Powers is ava ilabl e to you . Yo u 'r s ee kin g to mak e a record . We 've qive n you the op p or tunity Lo do so a nd wo u ld also clo so from t o mo1·row for ward fo1· t il ~ purposc•s of our liLiqation . JL is irnporLanL Lo us tilaL ;:~11 s t .:Jtl'lll<'lll s of all participants be on record und er oath and I propo s e to you and I think i t would probably be o ut o f order a t thi s time for Mr. Drown to be able to take up e veryo ne's time and ask q u estions here. RICIIARD DROWN: Well, considering Ms . Powers and the E n glewood llrba n Rene wal Authority arc n ot parties to any l itiq.:~tio n u t t h is timC' Lilat 's a uniqu e position Mr. Ols e n, if the r e ques t is denied , Council has asked for cer tain r e presentation by Ms. Powers and has asked for certa in l egal opi nions from cou ns el to the Urban Renewal Authority, if your a(lvisc i s t·hat at a public h ca rinq, t h e public i s n ot 'ntitl e d l o in quir e o f th e a uthority so be it . COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: Counselor, isn't this a public hearing before the En ylcwood City Council? not b e fore the Englewood City staff? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Mr. Brown knows well of our offer to take public dispositions at great len~th with Sue Powers anyone in the City go vernment a nd in the Urban Renewal Authority to the e xtent we have t he ability to make them availa bl e whi ch we don 't . li e has failed t o re - turn my calls for the purpose of setting up those ve ry dispositions which we are very anxious to take. We hav e offered as a courtesy the opportunity to sched ul e those at h is discretion at h is office and I h a v e n ever got a call back from him. We will ultimately have to go through the Court a nd seek to compe l these dispositions and in the meantime all of our people in City government will always be available for them. We also think it urgC'nt to do th em immediat ly and we propose th.:Jt they b done by the end of this week . LARRY RICH: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Ms. Powers a question? CITY ATTORNEY Olsen: No, you 're in the same position. You had the opportunity to ask her questions, you have asked your questions, she has never been unable to you. Take h er out in the hall. LARRY RICH: I 'm not in th e same position. CI~Y ATTOR NEY OLSEN: I r e commend the Council recommend to you to qo out in t he hall to all h ours of the e vening . I • • • • • -:D- COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: Susan , I recommend you qo in Lh c hall and answer these gentlemen's questions. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Mr. Mayor, I 'd also suggest that th e Urban Re newal Authority has a right t o say at wh at point their staff is qu e stioned in that mann er . CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: Th e r e 's a problem as t 6 wh e th er or n ot yo u 're seeking and I think Mr. Bro wn is obvio usly seeki n g is t o hav e Sue Powers spe ak for the Council o n th e issue of good faith negoti ations . Mr . Brown is trying to draw the Co uncil into making that recommendation so that he can late r say t o the Court that this Co uncil trie d to tell the Urban Ren e wal AuthoriLy what t o do which h e know s is improper a nd Council has always thought, LARRY RICH: I h ave not spoken with Mr. Bro wn. I don't kn ow what Mr. Br o wn's questio ns were . I just know wh at my ~ucstions arc . CT1'Y l\T1'0RNEY OLSEN: Wh at is the pr o b.l em with just simply with hrr . You ca n gath e r as many me mbers of the co mmuni~y in a mnmrnL and spea k with her at great length while the Council performs its busi-nes s. LARRY RTCII: Sh made a reprcsc nt.::~tion to th e Council t-h at T would li ke to ask her a question about. MAYOR OTIS: Under advice of legal counsel, if you wish to spea k with Su e Powers , you may tak e h er in the hall, you can not do it i n here . Can I have a motion to close this public h ear ing. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: So moved. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO: Second. MAYOR OTIS: This hearing is closed. DEP UTY OWEN: All votes have b een casted. the record show there are seven ayes and no nays. MAYOR OTIS: May we hav e a motion . Your Honor, let COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW: Would the clerk please assign the resolu tion a number and read the title? DEPUTY OWEN: Resolution No . 18, Series of 198 4. A resolution of th e City Council of the Englewood City Council to amend the Engle- wood Downtown Re development Plan. 18. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW: Your llonor I mov e the resolution number MAY OR O'l'TS: Do w have a second? COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Second. M/\Y OR OTIS: Discussion? • • I • - • • • • • COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Is there anyway to construct the motion so as to allow some interim time during which the leaseholders might continue or have an opportunity to discuss directly with Mr . Brady his quote to th e Urban Renewal Authority, perhaps offers that arc still un-offi cial? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: You're asking that to me to answer that? COUNCIL MRMBER NEAL : Yes . CITY ATTORNRY OLSRN: My recommendation and legal advic e to the Co uncil and cer.tai.n l y not Lo the Ut·ban l ~en 'W;:tl /\uLlH >t ·i Ly .tnd LhaL's Mt ·. Opperman's territory and I do not suggest to him or the Ur ban Renewa l Authority anything. I have a concern I think Council should consider and that is that under th constitution of Colorado it would aprcar to me Urbiln Ren l'W<ll Authority may b e bound by it:s ap[-)rajsals. 'l'h.tl in ot h e r words , if i t qoes to a SIJCC ifi c 1 '::tsc h )ld et-of th<' ,-~~maininq f<'W ilnd says , "our appraisal is for X dollars , but in order to sell this matter we plan to offer you as an offe r X plus 10 dollars , that is an offer they ar e forbidden to make as il <;jOVernmentill entity ." It is in essence giving a leaseholder $10 for with no basis in the appraisal or in fact or in law . I think that Mr. Opperman if he wishes to address the Council on th at issue as a matter of revising his o wn opinion as to the Ur ban Renewal Authority may be bound to tell the Urban Renewal Authority that the appraisals bind them to their offers . In that respect it can significantly red uce the ability to settle these negotiations becaus e Mr . Brady has of this mom ent prior to this Council's vot e or if the Council should vote no or continue this hearing has the authority a leaseholder anythiny he wants to or can afford. So Mr. Lahey 's suggestion of delayjn q should be considered in that light. I'm not totally sure from what I 've heard from various attorneys tonight that they are awa r e that they're abilit) to negotiat with Brady may be far greater than the Urban Renewal Au- thority because the Urban Renewal Authority hands are bound by state law. Mr . Brady has the ability to juggle, I'm sure he has. I'm sure in the deals that h e has made with various leaseholders so far some are signi- ficantly higher than the appraisals offered . I don't believe the Urban Renewal Authority could have done that. And so, strictly concerned re - g arding Mr. Lee's statement that Mr. Brady apparently or vice versa had made an offer this evening in essence giving Mr. Lee a matter of a few hours to consider on behalf of his client when once the Council votes if it should happen to approve the designation of these listed properties its ability to negotiate with Brady expires by operation of law. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: Well, then the opportunity, in a desire to give every opportunity to see these settled before they go to the Urba n Renewa l Authority is it possible to amend this resolution not to change the intent or the objective of it , but to perhaps render it ef fecLjve a week from Lhis eveniny. CITY 1\TTORNF.Y OLSEN: I think once the Council votes if it approv s this amendment in any fashion this evening I would think the Jeqal authority e vaporates. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL: on this cvcninq t o b effectiv No, I'm saying that it could be passed say Wednesday or one we'k from Monday . • I • • • • • • -25- CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN: As a matter of procedure I would re- commend to Council that it not do that. That it merely, if it wishes to do that, it would occ u r the wrath, in particular of Mr. Brown on behalf of his client, if it wished to delay for period of time one week or one hour or one day that would b e the way to do so. On the ot h er hand the Council should consider the possibility that there are certain leas e - holders who have been offered amounts that would be less than any new appra isal accomplished by the Urban Renewal Authority.· In that respect potential leaseholder in new ne gotiations with the new agency might find a better offer there . Miqht. MAYO R OTTS: Any more discussion? COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST: Your Honor , I would urge the City Council to refuse to list these leasehold interes~ in development plan for acquisition by the URA. This is a extrcm ly difficult area at best and 1 do n't think any of us arc favored by the ·l a w and if Lhc City Council s hould proceed to list th ese ·l ease h o ld s T think t ha t in some manner Lhc liRA s hould be made a war e that th e merchants should he L.t·<·,-tt c•<i th.tl liH •, J·hc• City Council Solid il SP if lh.tl liH•y ,;IH >ul<i lh • treated . And they would not be made to suffer extraordinary and signi- f icant losses. City Council apparently by operation of law doesn't have muc h control now over this process which is not the intent in this re- development. \vhen thjs redevelopment started it was n ot the intent wi H'Il the redevelopment boundaries were esta blished in my own mind anyway. It depends I pres um e on th e intrepretation of the development plan but certainly is one interpretation that the City should presumably could incl ud e the City Council is suppose to have some say about wh at we're told by counsel tonight that we're not suppose to h ave a say about good fai th negotiations. It seems to me that it is my main concern in this process we're discussing tonight is the Urban Renewal law. And it May seem to us a narrow issue, it certainly isn't a na rrow issue to th cff ct on merchan ts. It's a matter of their livihood and more. It seems to me not bei n g a lawyer that seeing the law is as explained to me by counsel that the entire urban renewal process certainly is stacked in f a vor of the URA and the developer and that there is no reasonable means of negotiations on a win/win basis. I've see n that referred to lalely that negotiations can result in both parties achievinq close to what they seek and it just seems to me we have automatically set up a win/lose situation here. And that there's certainly potential benefits in this redevelopment for the citizens of Englewood and the City Council has al- ways recognized this and a number of citizens recognize this and mer- chants recognize this themselves, but I don't think viable merchants should be forced out of business irregardl ss of the potential benefits to the City government or to the citizens. And I think that in some manner which we're advised that we're not, that we can 't do that the City Council should insist on maintaining some semblence or what semblcnce of, uthority is vnilabl and to see that • 11 parties arc treated fairly. And I think that if I wer a business owner in the area and had a retail business and looked to Council that I was being very obstructuous and reasonable I myself can sec th reason for their attitude nd I think that a number of them have presented their cases with qrcat calm consid rinq wha t is at stake for th m. And I think that even as City Council members we don't realize what it takes to crea e a small busin ss and to nuture a small retail business . I'm talkiny about Lhe small retail busin ss and it c n be any type of small retail business th t could b d stray d by any numb r factors and not • I • • • • • • • -26- all within the control of the owner . And certainly least of which is forced removal by a urban re newa l projec t, and I don 't kn o w h o w many businesses have been destroye d in the Denver metropolitan area b y re - newal proces s e s, urban renewal proce sses in the last t en years. And I don 't think these b u sinesses are making unreasonabl e demands and 1 think the urban rene wal law does preclude exactly what do s destroy busine ss and that's the very intangible factors tha t have been created by good ma n agemen~ over the years and I don 't know h o w many of us ex - clu ding the merchants in the audience hav e managed a successful retail busi n ess and I certainly would doubt that few of those that make th e law manage a successf ul retail business. And I just can not expect to see the same b u si n esses in a redeveloped downtown En gle wood that are there now and I know th e citizens of Englewood rely on these busi - ne sses and I don't know that the y 'll be there especiall y tho se that sell durable goods and I'm n ot too excited about shopping areas where there a r e hi qh priced specialty goods wh ich peopl e don ~t really n eed ils day to day s tup .l cs a n d I don 't t h ink the type o f qoods that the people o f En y l c wo od will routinely s hop in th e area for and I think we origi nall y made a commi tment on t hi s Council, at least it was in my mind that w did to l ea ve areas of Br oad way as is except store front remodeli n g and we we nt to great lengths to create processes for this remodeling in that area and I hate to se e the redevelopment go in the are a now where the developer apparently has a i ntendable clean sweep of the downt o wn area . To an ex t e nt all deve lopers arc subsidi zed by Urban Re newal Authorities to h elp assure his profit and his investors' profits and th e n we turn around and help penalize the existing merchants . The potential tax revenues of the City resulting from this development, I hop , would n 't blind us to the plight oF existinq merchants which we if not create don 't object to in this urban renewal process . In the developme nt plan , it says that the free developer is suppose to consid er a least which the wording seems to me to be pretty weak is suppos e to at least consider offering the chance for these me rc h a nts to stay in th e redevelo pment area even at the going market rates which certainly is no below market o ffer and we heard toni g ht that they hadn't at least one tenant hadn't received any area offer in that area. And so I think that the de e rminin q that that this i ncludin g these l ea s es now for acquisition to help imp l emen t the plan is a little bit confusing to m b eca use the Brady Co rporation it seems has set up a situation which on the face of it is cer ta inly beneficial to the City but forces th e City into saying yes and I hope that this wouldn't be the process down the road where we are as you might say set up and forced into this situation. We 've changed this plan seemingly twice maybe three times now in its direction and I think we're all of a sudden e nded up in this situat ion. So I in the narrow sense strongly obj ct to some lhin <J that we h a v e little co nt rol o v er . I gue ss tha t the urban renewal law . I strongly object to the effects it has on viable merchants. I recognize the benefits of this plan to the citizens but I don 't like being put in the situation of sayinq that this is b ene - ficial to a II Lhe community b ecaus it certainly isn ' L. MAYOR OTIS: Any other comments? Are you ready for the vote? Pleas0 vot0 . DEPUTY OWEN: All votes have been cast. Your Honor, let the record show there are five ayes, two nays, those voting nay, Council Member Vobcida, Counci 1 Member ~Ieist. • I • • • • • -27- MAYOR OTIS: Moti on carri e s. Motion to adjourn . CO UNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY: I move t o adjourn . MAYOR OTIS: We 'r e adjourned . • I . - ,...... ... ~ ,.; -t ( 0 ---0 J COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ci ty of Englttwood , Colorado April 30. 1984 ------- SPE~lAL MEETINQ : ------------- The City Council of the City of Englewood. Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on April 30, 1984. Mayor Otis. presiding. called the meeting to order . The invocation was given by Council Me111ber Higday . of •ttegiance was given by Mayor Otis . The pledge Mayor Otis asked for roll call . following were present : Upon a call of the rol 1. the ---- --- --- -------·-Council Me111bers Higday, Neal. VobeJda, Weist. Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis . MAYOR OTIS : the public hearing . We have a quorum . Can we have a motion to opttn COUNCIL I'EMBER BRADSHAW : So IIIOVed . COUNCIL MEMBER BILO : Second . DEPUTY OWEN : All votes have been cast . record show there are 7 ayes and no nayes . Your honor, lttt the ------ ------ --. .-------- ____ __:MA..::.,:.Y.:.CIR=-'_,O:..:.TIS : Motion carried . The purpose of the public hearing was ~o consider theAmendment t o-lhe Downtown Redevelopment Plan~ --- listing some additional properties and leasehold interests for acq,uisition b\1 the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority . The properties to be considered tonight include the following : -------- 3311 South Broadway. and the leases within the following properties : --· -- ----- 3333 South Broadway 33:l' South BroadwiV 336' South Broadway 3378 South Aco•a 3370 South Acoma 3340 South Acoma , and 33 West Qirard Avenue As 1 1tated in the last in the last hearing we had on this subJect, in order for the City Council to con1ider thil request. the Urban Renewal Authority must first make a finding that the developer, th• Brady Corporation, had negotiated in good faith with each tenant or owner . Toniaht , the Citu has received a Re1olution No . 13, from the Urban Renewal Authority, approved on -Aprtl --2,;1 984. ---.., I -. ~. ---_J -~ ----z :I . i 'l ----'I ;I r•l -}: j::l _j'•l " r.i =1 ~I ,I -----~~1 ___ _j: '" =l:j ~ ~ I I :, ---_j i~:l ';I ,, . .. • r that the Urban Re n ewal Authority has reviewed the developer '~s ~~--~~--­ do c umentat i on a n d h as determi ne d ~at the redeveloper has-fulfilled its obligation for good faith negotiations , pursuant to Section 1 .2 of the agreement for the r ede v elopment between the authority and the r edeveloper . It is n ot within the responsibilities of the City Council to go beyond or behind the Urban Renewal's Authority's review of that docu•entation ; therefore , the Citv Council will not be determining whether or not Brady has negotiated in good faith . This determination has alrea_!l!_ been made by the Urban Renewal. The City Council must decide whether the proposed amendment to the Englewood Downtown redevelopment plan is necessary to the successful implementation of the plan and is considered beneficial to the community as a whole . If the City Council votes tonight to a111end the plan and list the property and iHsehoid interests for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority, then the Urban Renewal Authority will begin negotiations with the property owners and leaseholders . Again , I want to reemphasize that the dec iii on as to good faith negotiations is the responsibility of the Urban Renewal Authority and that decision has been considered and made by them at this time . The Council does not have this responsibilitv and will not act on this issue . While •••bers of the audience are free to comment on any issue tonight, and I do have a listing of people that wish to address the Council, if anybody else wishes to address the Council we can send this list back to the audience so that you can sign it . If you do wish to address the Council , I would request that vou li•it vour co•ments to the issue of whether th• •••ndment to the plan is deemed necessary to the successful illlple•entation of the plan and is considered beneficial to the community as a whole . I want to say again that the City Council cannot and will not be deter•ining any good faith negotiations tonight . Due to the number of people that are in the audience, there may be more than what we have listed here who wish to address the Council and l would!lle tO~each party to limit their co,..ents to • •arimum of S 111inutes and to not repeat co .. ents previously made by another party, so that we will not be here al l evening . I would like to first ask Susan Powers, the erecutive director of the Urban Renewal Authority to address the Council regarding tfie reco,..endation of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority on this issue. When she is finished, then I will open up the hearing to people who have signed this sheet requesting to speak to the Council . DIRECTOR POWERS : Mayor. and Council, in March of this year the Urban Renewal Authority was presented with a request from the Brady Corporation to li~t certain properties and leasehold interests in the urban renewal plan for acquisition by the Authoritv . The original list c ontained 1~ leases in addition to 3311 South Broadway. whic h was the old F i rst National Bank building . Last week, Brady informed the Urban Renewal Authority they had made agreements with all but 7 lessees in the property owned by Brady . These agreements are either signed, or will be signed this week ; therefore, thev are only asking Urban Renewal Authority to review docu•entation on negotiations for the 7 leases, as well as the First National Bank building--the old First National Bank building . The Urban Renewal Authority met on Wednesday, April 2S and concluded in Resolution No . 13 that Brady had in fact fulfilled its requirements of the November '83 agreement for disposition of redevelopment, specifically -1 ,· ' ;IS -l' ,, ..j•~ " "I ' j:l "' it~l -PI ~ 1 \' ,;j "' jl 't -------1'"' ,. ·"' ,:.J!il j'fi ~' bel ~·' ..t'/ " ~·I t:' ~~. " .... E . ~~ " " ,,, -~ • ·~ " . t ""' ..... ..... ""' 1 2 , which outline good faith negotiation re~uirements . It is !h e recommendation of the Urban Renewal Authorit~ that the City Council amend the Downtown Development Plan and list the properties and leasehold interests on Amendment 6 in the Plan for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority . I would like to give the Clerk a copy of the Urban Renewal Authority 's Resolution and have it entered into t~_record . Are ~here _____-- any questions? Mayor Otis : Are there any ~uestion• from Cou~cil? COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : Susan, how many properties were initially involved? DIRECTOR POWERS : Nineteen . COUNCIL 1'1EI'1BER NEAL : And how many have reached agreement? DIRECTOR POWERS : Twelve are settled at this point . COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : And what is your understanding--you have been given to understand that several were •treed but not signed? DIRECTOR POWERS : There were onl~ 7 that remain on the list on the list in front of you . It is~ understanding, and ma~b• Brad~'s attorney could also address this, that there were 3 of tho•• 7 that the~ hop• to resolve this week, but they haven't been at this point . MAYOR OTIS : Are there an~ other questions? UNIDENTIFIED ATTENDEE : Mr . we could sign in if we wish to speak? Mayor, could we have that list so MAYOR OTIS : I have two 1 i sts here, on• that says "Observer", and one that says "Wish to Speak"--I'll go with the one that wish to speak and I'll call on 1'1r . Qen• Issen first . EUGENE IBSEN : Council, I'• Eugene Issen, I'm owner of the Man's World-Short Shop Stop on 336~ South Broadway . I'm sitting back her• and I'• listening and--I don't want to hear what is going on because--you know it's a losing battle . I opened m ~s tore, basically --it opened for business approxi•ately 6 or 7 months--and incidentally, doing very well. I think we would be a ver~, ver~ fine asset to Englewood . I didn't open this thing haphazard!~. I conferred with Fred Kaufman, who I 'v• known for many, ••n11 vears1 we talked about this 1~ ~ears ago . I'm sure Fred wouldn't have let •• go in to be his next door neighbor to this avail. I put in a lot of mon•ll • in fact, I invested 30 11ears of life and livelihood to ~·n up this store . I have a beauti~ul store . I feel we ar• • real asset to Engl•wood . I'm sort of on bended knees . I'm in a situation wher• you ar• not talking about building, ~ou are talking about destroyint_. There's two facets here . I f••l ~your building,_ y_ou are destroying . I 'm not asking for anything that's unreasonable, all I want to do is to continue what I started, whether it be next to Fred Kaufman, or down the street . Unfortunatel y , things take money today--I went deeply in debt and the only way I can pay •Y debts is through my • .--- ---- _.-- ---- - --" - ~~ I' ~ 1: ' -------------[ ~ r ~ ~ f ~ ' u • ~ D u ~ ~ ~ -_ _jo•i ----1~ :1 ,, ., "t~· >i ,, " • .. c e ~ ,. L -business_. We a re doing the business--i f my business Folds . I go . ~e [ have had two mee tings with Brady Corporation . They laid out the gulde lines , which is supposedly fair negotiations . What is fair? I 'v e got a situation . if you want to s ee what we c onsider fair . We gave them an . offer. we showed them bona fide figures , facts. what it cost us to put ln ~at store, ~rt duration, and the~'re going by the guide lines . ~s I · was h•r• b•for•• I said •v•rybody had a particular ne•d . I'm pleadlng with you, I'm begging with you . All I want to do--l will take a lose. but not to los•--1 laos• •v•r~ time . I JUSt want to continue what I start ed . Englewood was good to me, I worked for Englewood Men's Store som• 30 years ago . People know me . I com• from the shoulder. and I am pleading with ~ou . List en to these people because you are deal in~ ~it~_ with lies . It isn 't only docu••nts . Cond••nation was caused. and 1t lS in the Supre11e Court today, p•ople, developers are using this tool for ·~ situations lilre th is and JUSt bypassing th• guy 111Jt__o pays th!_taus .. And all I'm doing. I'm pleading. I don 't 111ant to make a long dissertat1on . I 111ant you to know my situation, there 's many people like myself, and all I 111ant to do is have somethin g fair. so I can continue my busin~s•=-I not asking for any blue sky. I'm asking for my life--it is in your hands. and that is all that I've got to say . MAYOR OTIS : Richard I . Brown RICHARD BROWN : Mayor Otis. Members of the Council, Ms . Pow•rs. I a• r•ally appalled by lllhat I 've heard so far by you. Mayor Otis . You were elected by a constituency here to represent the interests of th• City. and lllhat has result•d sine• my involvem•nt in this matter approximately a month ago , has been one delay. one side-ste~p. one~ private meeting, one •xecutive council aft•r another . COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : Mav 111e have some further ide~ntification fro• you Mr . Bro111n? Ar• you representing someone or -- RICHARD BROWN : I repres•nt, Councilman Neal. as each of you undoubtedly b••n adv is ed by your council , Physical Whimsical. Inc . at 3315 South Broadway . COUNCIL MEMBER HIODAV : You'r• not making a statement then that we--you said that we were •lected to r•present the citizens of the City and th•n you i111ply that we are not doing that . but you . in fact . are not representing them . Right? RICHARD BROWN : Is Physical Whimsical, Inc ., Mr . Higday. not a citiz en of this --huh--constituency? COUNCIL MEMBER HIQDAV : A citizen that elected me is telling me all along that I am doing a good JOb -- RICHARD BROWN : That is fine Mr . Higday. you go ahead and say-- MAYOR OTIS : -Just a minute . sir . Councilman Higday ? CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN : We are in litigation with Physical Whimsical and I think it was important that Mr . Brown identify himself in • -..., ~ .....,_ -'-- ~- ~- ........~ '-.. ........ ........_ ~ "-- -, ""' . •, . -, ·" ~:. ' ~: " JU t " ~!} ---; .. "' :~·1 ~· {' ·~ r' E -. l " IT> ..J,.;_') • ~ < ,... L __ _ B se of that factor that regard for the rest of the observers here . ecau th ' . ' · · he says 1s even1n -the Counc1l probably should not respond to anyth1ng . Th t . g, and if it wishes to respond to do so within that litigatl ~n . h a ~s not to say that Mr . Brown should not be afforded any opportunity e wan s this evening, to make wh•tever statement he wishes to . My recommen~ation ,....-- t t h e but rather Wlthi o he Council would be not to make any response er ' ~ the litigation that was filed two weeks ago . ,..... RICHARD BROWN : Thank you Mr . Olsen . That is a~ interesting bit of advice . The litigation that was instituted. of which you have been provided copies of certain of the summons and complaint. an~ motions by City Attorney . Olsen, dealt with a specific issue . That speclflc issue was : Whether or not the 1 icense gran tad bll vou. and when I sav you, I include vou. Mr . Higda 11 , as well as each of the other members of the Council ,--granted by you, took a valuable property right from . Physical Whimsical . That lawsuit dealt specifically with th• p~rking lot adJacent to 331~ South Broadway . It did not address. at that t1me . the issues that would be raised this evening as it would be--undoubtedly be premature . That lawsuit resulted in a hearing before ~udge Beckman in Arapahoe County, and at that time, the Court made a determination . It determined that there was a threat of immediate and irreparable harm to be occasioned to Physical Whimsical. Inc . Notwithstanding the fact that the temporary restraining order that was granted by Judge Beckman was subse~uently dissolved by virtu e of Physical Whimsical's failure to post a •1 million bond, did not alter the fact that the Court made a determination of irreparable harm. You should have been cognizant of the fact that once the Court was able to make a finding of irreparable harm that it, by inference, if not by actual statement. indicated tha~ the City, and each of you named defendants had violated a propert\j r1ght which had inured to the benefit of Physical Whimsical . Now. what \IOU are seeking to do, and it is outside the issues of that litigation at this time, is to again avo id a responsibilitv of which you have been vested . Your responsibilitv is not simpl 11 , Mavor Otis . to carte blanche accept Mrs . Powers statements of good faith negotiations . In fact , it is contr ar lJ• Mr . Ma\jor , to so111eth ing that vou stated three weeks ago . When the matter was tabled at the request of Mr . Paysinger. as to the determination of good faith negotiations. vou indicated . Mr . Mavor. that the matter would be tabled until the 30th--this evening, at which time the Council would consider whether or not good faith negotiations had occurred . I challenge vou to review the agreement for disposition and redevelopment between Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and Bradv Development Corporation, and S . Bud Sradv at Section 1. 2. upon which Mrs . Powers relies . And it states : "The Authoritv and the City shall r•view the evidence of good faith negotiation . "Where is your review, Mr . Higday, Mayor Otis , of the good faith negotiations with Physical ~ Whimsical . Where is your review in accordance with the agr•ement unde r which you alledge to be bound . I challenge you , M•mbers of the Council and Mr . Ma'!or to respond to fiOUr obligations to review and determine good faith negotiations . Let '1 take for example , the good faith negotiations evidenced by Brady Development Corporation and S . Bud Brady as p•rtains specifically to Phvsical Whh11ical. Specifically. Mrs . Powers sto~tes that the Urban Renewal Authority resolved on Apr il :2~. 1984 that pursuant to Section 1 . 2 of the redevelo pment agreement good faith negotiations had _conclude~ and that Brady had c omplied with its and his requirements . Allow me to explain what occurred on April 24 . At mlJ request. • meeting ~- --· -.. --- --- --~ -·-- - --, ----r. --1 . ~" " "' •• f,;, L~.a' -,.,1 t: 1n ,.. "'I ~· --t: ~. r.: •• ·" g "' (_ was finally established with Mr . Paysinger, Mr . Dana Strout, who .0. co uncil to Brady in the litigation that was filed by Physical WhlmSlcal , Mr . Zuckerman, who is princip•l in Physical Wh imsic•l• and Mr . Klineman . another principal of Physical Whimsical . The meeting occurred in Mr . Paysinger's office , at which time it was made abund•ntly clear. that any n egotiations at that point in time in view of the litigation that had been initiated would have to be handled by Mr . Str.out, as council to Brady . Mr . Pa11singer was a host of the meeting, but was a very poli~e listener . This was sup_p.osted to be the good fai!!!_ n~gotiation . and 1t could be the only thing that Mrs . Powers relies on in her misrepresentation . I dare say. to the Council, that good faith negotiations occurred . Mr . Higday smiles . Mr . Higday, I suppect that you don't own a valuable piece of propertv in the area to be condemn~d and that \IOU • sir, are not going to be affected by this effort . It 1s not quite as entertaining to those property owners. Mr . Higday. that you believe it is . Specifically, that meeting occurred following the t~ke or leave it offer that I referred to at the last meeting from Mr . Pays1nger . You will recall that I tendered to you, Mayor Otis, and to the Council, a copy of Mr . Paysinger's letter that had been received that day . It said. You have 10 da\IS• Ph11sical Whimsical, to accept our offer . Our generous offer is SlO.OO, and we'll throw in S,O,OOO for relocation expenses. and we 're such gratuitous individuals <Brad 11 is> that we will offer to return to \IOU 11our Sl,,OOO securit11 deposit, that had been deposited with the landlord, Englewood Plaza, Limited, at the time the lease was entered into and b\1 the conve11ance to Brad\1, he exceeded to that Sl,,OOO deposit allegedl\1 based on an appraisal issued b11 ~oseph Farber and Compan11 on April 2, 1984, where Mr . Farber provides one paragraph of analysis for conclusion and a lot of pages of assumptions , limiting conditions •nd credentials . Mr . Farber concluded in his appraisal, that the leasehold interest of 331' South Broadwa11, owned by Physical Whimsical. Inc .. h~_d a value of zero . Unique! It's undiSputed b\1 an\lbOd\1• Hr . Tar6er included, Mr . Brad\1, Mr . Strout , Mr . Pa11sing•r that the square foot rental being paid b11 Ph11sical Whimsical is S3.4B per foot, presentl\1 . Interestingly enough, \IOU can't get space 1 ike that for S3 . 48 a foot today . Physical Whimsical has attempted to do so . The going rate for some 36,000 square of space in that t11P• of building, not even the locale. but that type of bu i lding--where ever. is between S6 and S7. '0 per square foot . Physical Whimsical has endeavored to find alternate space to relocate its business at what ever price . It has gone as far north as lOOth street; it has gone south ; it has gone east; it has gone west, and nowhere can it find rental space at that price, or anywhere close to it . So what did we do? We met with Mr . Pavsinger and Mr . Strout last Tuesday explained this to them. We said, we'll tell you what we will do . We won't ask for a dime. JUSt move us . ~ust ~nove the busin•ss . You move it at vour own negotiated price . We'll give you the opportunit\1 to find us a location . All we want to do is have the right of approval to be sure it is a - location where there are a lot of kids--something like Englewood . It doesn 't have to be Englewood, it could be in Arvada, Westminster. South Olenn, North Qlenn. we are not particular, as long as there is some accessibility and a good young population . We said, you find it, you pay the difference in the rent . don't pay us an11thing, we are not looking for money, all we want to do is relocate the business . If you c•n move it for $20,000, you move it . If it cost you $70 ,000, you move it . We explained the fixed improvements that were in the location that have to be incurred for furniture. fixtures and equipment that was immovable . It --......_ __ _ --._ --......_ -.......__ - ..........._ ..........._ - ""- -.....__ ---- ....... . .._ -·--- - ·-. "· ,,. I "' 1nl ,.I I' \ ., ., k \,! "I ,, E ;u .~~] ,I " • "· ... -1>,1 ~· p .. 'liJI ./'' !411 c, f "'I ~· t -, .. ·~/ ,, ,... ,..... """ ...... ...... ... co~ld ~'t be replaced . Yo u c o ul dn 't pick i t up and take it _ou t . . P~1nt 1ng . you cou l d n 't scr ape the walls and liquifY the pat~t .agatn. Mr . Htgda y . You co ul d n 't mov e c ertain stairs and certain fac111t 1 es that were p rovi ded fo r the handicapped children • so that this fa c ility was us a b~e b y all . You c o u ld n't remove the sprinkler system tha~ they had to put 1n the bu i ld i ng . And we told them that there was approx1mately $130 to $1 4,,000 in the i~proveMents that would be lost. totally . How is that- betn g c ompensated fo r? Mr S t r o u t . at that meet i ng . politely listened. and I said• Mr . Strout, let s talk conceptually . Let 's talk not hard dollars• but do you agree with the concept of negot i ating the value of this property .the fair market value of the property . and the cost to relocate• the c~st of the im provements . Mr . Strout said. I appreciate what you are salpng •. Mr . Br o111n . I hear 111hat you are saying. I know these costs have been tncurred . I d on 't have the author i ty to tell you "yes"• or "no"• but I '~l go ~ack t o Mr . Richard Whiting to determine whether or not these conslderatlons a r e appropriate . Mr . Paysinger politely listened . No response was m•de . We evidenced that the difference in the rent that would have to be paid for any location . •nd the cost of the improvements might approach • h•lf million dollars . The response was. "But that is not in the budget ." Mr . Strout s•id . "th•t isn •t in the budget . " But Mr . Br•dY bought that p roperty kno111ing what the lease provided . He knew percisely wh•t Physical Whimsical was p•ying in rent. he reviewed t~nd bought the le•se ; and he chose to do so . He chose to do so under the guise of benefiting the public of Englewood . He did so under the guise of urban renewal. kno111ing that this property was not designated for acquisition . He chose t o do so . and he chose to do so bec•use he put the keystone of the p r oJect i n property that was not yet designated and he backdoored you . He backdoored everyone of you by stating specifically that without th i s proJect without this corner without the corner of King Soopers the proJect cannot work . But why wasn't King Soopers put in one of the are•s that was designated originally for acquistion . Why wasn't King Soopers put in an area that was available •t that ti~e for condemnation . Why did h e wait until the end when the whole plan was done two yet~rs have gone by . mon i es have been expended. plans had been relied on we saw three weeks ago . four weeks ago. pretty pictures. drawings-and plats and plans and specs o~ this downtown redevelopment . All hinging according to Mr . Brady and Mr . Strout . Mr . Paysinger. and Mr . Whiting on this property that isn't yet within the pl•n •nd then they rush IJs into these good faith negotiations . Three weeks ago they deliver the appraisals and we •11 have to run out and try to get •ppr•ist~ls done because we h•ve to have something to respond to . We had to have a document and that's how you negotiate . A document comes first. an offer comes first and then you make a counteroffer and they come back with a counter to that . Vet we did not have anything until three weeks ago . We had eng•ged an appraisor after that meeting who has indicated to us several things . Number 1 is that he can 't c~nclude that Mr . Farber's appr•isal is reasonable based on the information contained therein . The data in this document may not necessarily be reliable . That Ms . Po111ers undoubtedly reached that conclusion . I challenge Ms . Po111ers to respond . Ho111 did Urban Renewal conclude the reasonableness of the appr aisal at "liTO? Mr . Chase has s im ilarity indicated that he has not had an ample opportunity to complete a full appraisal. a fair market value for the property . Vet we are rushed into this and the Council is adopting Orban~wal 's ..---- -· -· --- _.--· -----~- ----- I r, ~: ~· " ~ ... ~: .,, Jt'JI ,. ,. 'I ~:~ ~:' -i;l \ \.''1 n! . "'' --),, I" I -----i\>:1 "I ,, . ------------1~ r ... e•l Ei -t:. .. ----------------- 1: ~ • ,.... ,.... '"' ' :< < L~ repr esentat1on of th1s good f a ith n~otiations with ou t amp l e op po rtunit~ to so enter into negot1 ations . After the meeting of the 24th with Mr Strout and Mr . Paysinger , I didn 't hear a word ti 1 today when I call ed Mr . Strout 's office and I said , "Dana, what 's going on , I have n't h eard f rom yo u?" and he said , "WelL we 're not going to make another offer, !IOUJU!I_S wanted a half million dollars . We 're still at ,0, f i fty thousand dollars for rel ocation ." I said , "Dana are you going to show up tonight?" "No , Bob Paysinger will be there, I don 't need to show up ." Knowin9 that~p .. rentlll on the 2'th , the da11 af'ter our meeting that Ms . Powers had concluded that good faith negotiations had occurred . I chall enge the C it11 to complll with the minimum requirements of the agreem ent . I challenge the City to comply with the minimum requirements to determine that number 1 good faith negotiations had occurred and numb er 2 that Physical Whimiscal. 331' South Bl'oadway, f'ih within the parameters of a blighted area . I haven't heal'd any evidence l'elative to the statutory requirements . And I challenge Ms . Powers to stand before the Council and \IOU , Mayor Otis , to state under the provisions of the rel ocation handbook that ••11•• the Authority shall from time to time determine a current definition of fair market value as is generally used by the courts of the State of' Colorado, approved by the Colorado Supreme Court . l'ls . Powers has counsel pres•nt . I find it uniqu• under any theory that that particular stat•ment can be supported . We talked about wheth•r or not the •m•ndm•nt is necessary and bene~icial . When you or your predecessors on the Council had adopted the redevelopment plan did you ant ici pat• the necessity of' the sixth ••endment? Was it represented to you at that time that the keystone Pl'OJI!ct was King Soopers and that prop•rty was not d•s i gnat•d f'or acquisition? Or were you similarlll mislead? Are you pawns in this action? Al'e \IOU going to accept or con done this action? I challl!nge you to stand up b• counted have \lOUr voic e be heard that you will not acc•pt this type of action by a private dev•l op er for private gain . Su"•• you can ••11 the City will tendgenderlll benef'it in th• long run, but what threat is being h•ld over 11our head that the proJect will conclude, it will c•••• at this time unl•ss this key stone corner is initi ated . That what percipitated that license being iss ued . That is what percipitat•d the lease being entered into by you alt ering and effecting the property rights of Physical Whimiscal and others at 331' South Bl'oadway by the destruction of' that parking lot . You kn•w the ••istence of' il'reparable inJury. vet \IOU decided to go alon g . I ask you now to stop going along . I ask you to make the findings if they exist on competent evidence and if you do make those findings that this area is blighted, that there have been good faith n egotiations, then stand up to them, but don't hide behind a shield of the Urban Renewal Authority , l'lr . Mayor . Thank you . I'IAYOR OTIS : l'lr . Edward B. Lee . EDWARD LEE : Your Honor and members of' the Council, I 'm EdLee and I'm hel'e tonight again on behalf of' Ted Valias who owns Ted's Custom Clothes, 33 West Oirard . I'm Ted's attorney . I've been practicing in Englewood for 1' 1/2 years and I 'm native of' Englewood having been born on South Logan approximately 40 years ago . And I must say that in my existence as a human being I know of no instances in which the City of Englewood has let businesses be destro11ed by a private developer . And I trust that 's not go ing to happen this time . I do question whether or not this property is truly within, is truly a blighted within the meaning of - l' ' 1:' ,, " " ., ""itt I ,, " ~JI ~~ ~: lze! 1 " ~· '" ... P• .~ -- :~ • ;, ... • !.. ~ ' .. the Urb a n Ren ewal statute in the State of Colorado . And I su ppose we could debate that all night which I don 't in tend to do . But I think the Council aught to give seri ous consideration to whether or not his property does qualify for inclusi on into an Urban Renewal Authority b efore it vo tes . I don 't want to argue good faith or lack of good fa i th because your Honor has told us that that is irrelevant ton i ght . I would like to mention JUSt one point however regardin§l our negotiations and that is that we too did not receive, we met last Thursday and received an offer which was higher than their initial final offer . We heard absolutely nothing from them until 10 minutes before -this meeting took place t oni ght and that time they did make another offer . We're still aways apart . We may have it settled, but we m•L not . I 'm not certain wheth er Brady had the authority to make the offer and l'm-not certain whether or not because the Council has determined good faith negotiations have occurred that the offer can even be made by Brady at this time, but we will continue to negotiate in good faith with whoever we are suppose to negotiate with and attempt to arrive at a satisfactory solution . CITY ATTORNEY OLSEN : Mr . Lee did you mean because the Urban Renewal Authority had made that determination rather than Council , thought that vou had J USt~ .. EDWARD LEE : Yea, the record should be corrected . COUNCIL MEMBER NE~Mr . Brown, you had mentioned ... COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW : Mr . Lee COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : Mr . Lee , I'm sorry, excuse me . Mr . Lee L OU mention ed the time involved here . You're alittle bit unclear, you're not saying the first offer you rece i ved was 10 days ~o . EDWARD LEE : No . As I mentioned at the last Counci 1 meeting on thi~ subJect we had rec.ived first and final offer and wer i given until April 20th . We met , we reJected that offer and counteroffered and I won't io into numbers because I think they are irrelevant . We did r eceive another offer on, I think, April 24th, at whfCh ~ime we had our first real negotiating session . I would urge the Council if necessary to c onsider amending the EURA guidelines to provide more to these business owners that those guidelines currently provide . It's my understanding that they are entitled to the value of their leasehold interest plus relocation expenses not to exceed •10,000 except in extreme circumstances . I don't know what extreme circumstances are , but I know everyone of these merchants and business owners who is not settled must have extreme circumstances because I don 't know one of them that can come clo se to relocating his business for •10,000 plus the value of his leas eholding . It 's simply impossible . You're talking loss of profits . You're talk i ng taking a new structure and making your leasehold improvemen ts and any -of vou wiiO have businesses of your own know how tentative that is . And I think that the Council can continue to protest these people by considering amending those guidelines if necessary . Council clearly has the-dutv -in---;n-v opinion and I'm surethe citi zens o f the City of Englewood would also agree to assure that the EURA now treats these four remaining business owners fairly . I think that you all ought to put yours elves in these owners shoes . Tf i t were your-6usiness wha t • --- - ·-- l'l . ' " r ~~ '} I ,. , .. .) )'·: lu: p.! 1' " ...... ~------=<' would you want before you would voluntarily move fro~a locati ~n -~ou '~ been at for a numbe r of years to another location . What you would wan is to c ome out economically in the same place after the move . The offers that have been made s1mply to these people that haven 't settled , now I suspect there are some that have settled, have not been high enough to assure tha t to them. Every business that moves is going to su~fer from some rather extreme loss of profits eith•r be-it temporary or 1n the long run because in today 's society when people are on the move they are going to drive to a location if that location is closed, ~OX may try and find wh e re the business moved to,-the other ~OX may JUSt dr1ve on or go to --_ another location because time is so valuable . I would like to JUst mention a ~tt~ b!_t about my client . Ted has been at 33 West Girard and the clothing and tailoring business for the last nine veers. rtiat------.....:.:. -- b us iness has existed I believe at that location for 22 veers . Ted Wants to stay in the Citv of Englewood . In fact he has purchased another location which he is considering moving to . Now he has done this to cU'f .....__ down on his potential losses but it's still going to cost him an awful lot of money to get reopened . An awful lot more than wh~t has been offered . So in closing I JUst want to sav that I Too lilre Mr . Issen dfir no behalf of Ted urge vou to do whatever vou can to protect his interests and the interest of the other three that have not reached settlements . Thank you . - MAYOR OTIS : for IJOU . Thank vou Mr . Lee . Mr . Opperman. I have question l'tR . CIPP ER I'1AN : Yes sir . MAYOR OTIS : Since Mr . Lee who raised a good point . Since th 1 Urb an Renewal Authoritv has found there has been good faith offering can P'lr Bradv or representatives continue to negoliilTon wfth t -he - leaseholders? I'IR . OPPERP'IAN : Depending of what Council would find this evening . If Council were to find that the property should be included in the plan and based upon the resolution of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authoritv the negotiation phase would then pass over to the Englewood ---_ Urban Renewal Authority and thev would conduct negotiations with the property owner from this point forward . --MAYOR OTIS : Thank you . Mr . Lahey . WILLIAM LEAHY : Thank vou P'lr . P'lavor . P'ly name is William R. Lahey L-A-H-E-Y. I represent Ali Baba Restaurant which is located at 3370 South Acoma . I'd like to thank you for giving some forum tonight . I would like to try a different tack rather than challenge rather than get up and rant and rave . I'd like to Just simply bring some facts to the Council's attention that the Council may not even be aware of what is going on in the background . We have not, mv client and I, have not seen fit to yet institute litigation . We are trying to work and your Honor has requested that the comments tonight be directed to "is this really necessary ." I'd like to start off by addressing that directly . There is no reason this is necessary to include these private leasehold interests in this City's development program at this time . My client and Brady still are fullv capable of as two independent entitles negotiating some • --------- ---- ---------~---- '·I ---_j:l ' • 1 --1: -;·:;J r ----~;' 1 !1•, J.,: ~;;:.rl ~I ll k:l fz,l J,.· ~:/ ---c: ~I ~I ')l --c/ ~·· i!91 -J.:/ ~zi ~'i ~.J.J I: "' ... -;.. • • ~·! r· '"I r.J: to•: ---j,, ''I ~: tj (, "' --<' f'' '· r' ~-... ~; ·- ··J i:: ,:i .J.,' t ~ (_ problems out on p rice Th ere is no reason the City with its Urban Renewal Authority and its City power needs to give a private developer that extra clout to where a private developer can go to each and everyone of th ese tenants and say take it or leave it . This is my last offer . I make one or two offers . If you don't like. fine. I'll Just hand it over to the City or to the Urban Renewal Authority . I'll get this whole problem out of my hair . That's letting off somebody too early . Now this whole instance we have now had two or three times that this has been suggested ; and proposals and amendments have been forthcoming . And we appreciate the difficulty that the City has been placed in . There have - been changes since 1982. of course that has . And this now because of the changed circumstances in the City of Englewood may ultimately result in some sort of benefit to the City people. and I'm sure that you are al_l __ acting with that in mind . The problem is that you're being mislead. You 're acting too quickly and you're are being given false deadlines and false 1deas about the ramifications if you do not take this action and make the amendment tonight . What is magic about tonight? You've deferred it and deferred it before . You have one story about negotiations . I will not go into detail about figures . I will not get into detail . I would only say that unlike other tenants my client still have not even seen a copy of the appraisal . I have asked for that twice . We haven 't even been given a copy of a summary . We are told and given one figure and then we are--have a meeting subsequently where we are told verbally that that figure isn't even good and that now the appraisal doesn't even show that and yet we haven't seen the appraisal . We have not been given an opportunity for consideration of anything other than a lease and some form of moving expense . Why is that? That is because the developer in this case is using you all as a backup and saying ultimately I can JUst get rid of the problem and we think that you all are being used and that you all should not commit the City that's trying to do good for i~s citizens to be used and very productive tenants that could make this whole thing work are being harmed and are being asked to cut down their prices. are being asked to be put in a situation of like or lump it We also were old this is our final offer . And it's coincidence . I had not heard the story of Physical Whimiscal before tonight . But it is very coincid ental that we also told "wait a minute. we've got to check our budgets ." Now that is not a statement of what's fair and what's not fair . It's a statement of what do we want to spend on this . How can get the margin down of the tenants so we can show to City Council that we are doing something . I would like the City Council to also, I interpret the agreement as to requiring some sort of review by this City Council . Some sort of at least asking of questions of the Urban Renewal Authoity. "did you have any documents?" "what was the basis of the appraisal?" "can we rely on th i s appraisal ?" "has the appraised values changes?" I don't think any of these questions and pertinent questions are being asked . We were not even asked to the meeting of EURA . We have no idea what documents may or may not have been submitted . We have no idea about what one-sided statements have been made to EURA about what went on in negotiations . Now so far we have been doing all the production of the documents . We have supplied all of the documents substantiating all of the i~rovements which have been sizeable that have been put into that place . We have been asked tO su bstantiati every item and amount of expense . We have not seen one item of substantiation from the other side . And all we ask is . "let's see something on the side . Let's really get in and ask what sort ofn egotiation . ·•·we 're not saving. ''liang up -·------. " ,:1 ,: "'j, .... h --< .. -I" ~· . .!"' " ·' ln c bec .. us e of the devel...QJ!..!r ." We 'r e ~i !!Jl • ~wait _~_minute . Urban_B.enewa_! Au t h o ri t y th e Counc i l about what went o n and what really i s go i ng on i n t h e n eg o t i a t ions before we 're goi ng to g iv e you c arte bla n che to start ~ de a lin g with them when two privat e pa r t i e s ought to be able to resolve ~ thei r own problems ." Things mi g h t b e d i fferent i n d i fferent s i tuations ~h e r e there 's lawsuits pendin g . wh e re t h ere is obvious an i mosity or i nability or b e ing wa y f a r apart . That 's not the case here . And that 's no t necess a rily the cas e with most of the tenants on this block and in th i s area . I think if th e Counc i l would start aski ~~h ~~ these tenants . . ha v e really attempted to d o . I think they overall would find out these te n ants are n o t out to ma k e a buck . The s e tenants aren 't seeing huge dollar signs . They 'r e JU s t trying~ to come out reasonabl 'l_ whole ._ Now we know th a t you 'T'e und e T' g ui delines . Of couT'se. you aT'e . And we know that not ev e ry lit t l e b it of su bJective pT'oblems. concerns. headaches can be compens a ted . We know th at too . But heT'e you are dealing with a piece of prop e rty that wa s bought b y a pT'ivate developer and now in a last minute f a shion. and this wa s con templated . this was closed JanuaT'y, and now we don't g e t a l etter . we don 't even get a commencement of negotiations until Ma T'ch . An d n o w a l l o f a sudden they'T'e thT'owing the City Council to wa nt i n g o n Ap ril 30, le s s than 30 days fT'om any appT'aisals fT'om being a tta in ed whi ch we haven 't even seen to go and taking it on themselves and taking it on to t he Ur ban Renewal AuthoT'ity to tT'y to handle this mess which still th e T'e is no s h ow i ng that couldn't be resolved by Brady himself i f th at p r e s s u T'e was put to beaT'e . Now I was not here at the l a s t meet i ng because I attended two other meetings that were closed . und eT'stood that the last meeting was also a directive giving time for Br ad y and i n fact e nc ouraging BT'ady and maybe coming on a little stronger than th at s aying "w e wa n t s ome good faith negotiations ". That 's also in the ag r eeme n t . A ba sic te n ant saying . "wait a minute. before you involve the Ci t y. l et 's so met hin g productive . then if you 're at the very end I of y our r ope . QK , we 'l l help you out because it 's in the good--best int e T'est . That 's no t t h e case here . Nobody '• at the end of their rope e xc ept we 'r e at a p oin t where Brady feels they can come to the City Council a n d us e you a s th e ir last straw and use you to knuckle tenants un d er . I'd li ke you a ll to be able to ask also the tenants that haven't s e ttl e d . Wh y i s it th a t t h e s e tenants are coincidentally the ones that h a v e n't s ettled . Yo u wi ll find that the ones that haven 't settled are th e v e ry ones that po ur ed in the most into leasehold improvements . You will f in d that t h ey are the ones that have the most to lose and are the tricki e st ne got i a tions an d are operating businesses that are rather difficult to e v a luate . And y et those are the ones that they s how are the tT'oubl e on e s . T h e ones th at a r e difficult to appraise . The ones that are t o se ttle and tha t c a n't be taken here . Take it or leave it . It T'e~uir e s a lit tle b it mo r e d e l icate negotiation . And so what are they doin g . Put t i ng it onto a Ci ty authority . I don't think that is the prop er wa y . I do n't t hink i t is the way it is designed to acqua i nt or to accomp lish wh at was r e ally d es ir ed by all parties . And that i t let 's get on with the pT'OJ e ct . City 's determined it is a good proJect . It can wo rk. b ut let 's get i t o n in a way that doesn't create animosity t hat doesn't cre a te undue h a r ds hi p and that Justly com p ensates people that do e sn't ma ke i t t oo ea s y for someone JUst to bail out and shove the problem onto s o meo ne else . I wo u ld also like to point out that I. you r Honor , I unders t and what you Hono r sa i d about the gu i del i ne s being used t o day . I have q uestion wh e th e r o r not the Counc i l and yo ur Ho n or may simply carte b l a nch e assume t hat ceT'tain th i ngs have gone o n without ~ -----, . .. ' ·, " .!''' 1>: ----~----4 r·' ,.. " ,, e·l ·" .. ~ ., b joe ,, l~r • "" :: < reall~ ask i ng about those good faith negotiations . T here 's been no ev i dence pres e nted . There 's been no stat ements . I don't know if you -----_ have b ee n given any of the docum entat ion or substantiation of what 's gone on in these difficult negotiations . I am interested . I think you all intelluctuall~ ought be intereste d before you take a step that permits the neg o tiation and your Honor asked a question about what would happen with the negotiation . Th at 's exactly right what would happen with the ---_ . negotiation . Brady 's out of it . No ~ore responsibilit~. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : Mr . Mayor . WILLIAM LAHEY : Yes . COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : I apologize f'or stopping you Mr . Lah•y . WILLIAM LAHEY : T hat's fine . COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : You're making an excellent presentation but vou 're covering ground two . and three. and f'our times . WILLIAM LAHEY : So the other item that I would like to cover is the parking lot . We would JOin in and 3370 is right across the str•et fro~ the parking lot . That is old ground . We never heard any notice . It is now causing us an absolute inabilit~ to have custo~ers come . There are no parking places . I think the City should or could have been aware of that . They should or could have been previou•lll advised. I don't know what the advice is or was . I don't know und•r what Authority . I'm not •ven challenging that , apparently that's even the subJect of a lawsuit that I don 't want to get into . I would JUst like to say that as a result of that now . That is also co~plete changed the ~atu ~ o ~ whatev•r n•gotiations might have gone on and I think it was premature and it is now caused us to be in a situation where we are going to have to I--close down the operations of this business . There are only two parking spaces available . We c an not do an~thing else legiilly. parkTng legiill~. And it has caused a substantial change in the position of the parties in nejo_!iation and a substanti~_!oss to my client . Thank you . ~ COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : Mr . Mayor . I wanted to--the issue of par•lnJ ca•e u~. There is public parking in and quite a bit of public parking within the 400 feet that zoning allows to-service-any of th• areas downtonw . I know that the Department of Community D•velopm•nt is going to be releasing a letter that isolates the considerable amount of public parking that remains in the area . WILLIAM LAHEY : OK. where is that? COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL : Chamber of Commerce building is the block north of Fl~ WILLIAM LAHEY : OK , I will retract then. if that's the case . There ••11 be other available . but certainlv not right across the street . And that is su bstantiif111 differ~t night time withe restauranT and people walking in an area that's under construction. And it has caused a problem . That's al l. We wish also for the Council to be aware of it . Thank-you . ------ -l I; I ------j 1:/ '· ------~., ;:~1 1, "' '"I ,, -r· j:i . 1·:1 ---, .. --~ _ _j"' ------- P' r-8 ~ --r':l ·I ) --"' ~· -~ ~I t ~~ --------- ~~I =i ~ ~ ' ' 'i 'I ·---"I " ~I ---i.,j Ji L • MAYOR OTIS · OK. the next name on the list. can't r ead the first name . the last name is Rich . LA RRY RICH : Yo ur Honor and members of the Council. my name is Larry Rich . I'm an attorney . I represent Man 's World and Gene Issen . I'm going to endeavor not to repeat all of the statements made by my predecesso rs here at the podium. however. there has not been one speaker yet toda v_ tha_t I have not been in complete a!Jreement ~i~ as it relates to our sitaution as well . I am certainly appalled as been other people at this podium concerning the finding of good faith negotiations. especially considering that no one had ever taken the time to call Mr . Issen or myself to discuss whethir we hav.-inT.ct-been -n.-got1at"icf with in good faith . No one has asked us that. uh, that. uh our discussions of releasing space in the pre~ises have fallen on deaf ears . No one has asked us or discussed with us how our claim for specific damages totally d is count in some cases . We are one of those companies still in negotiation . We will be one of those companies that will ultimately come to agree~ent although we are thousands of dollars apart . I feel as others have stated that the Brady Corporation is using the City Council and the Urban Renewal Authority as their rubber stamp . I can't expect that anyone of you people could retain your positions as working for the City if the constitutency determined yes in fact your actions constituted a rubber sta~p to the development . The development is one thing I would like to deal with specifically now . Your Honor, you mentioned at the beginning of this meeting that we're here to decide two things . One is it necessary to include the properties in the current development and two is it benefical to the City . I submit to you I have heard nothing . No evidence presented by anyone indicating this property could in fact be necess ary to include the property and in fact the redevelopment plan that was negotiated and entered int-o by the Brady -c-orporition and· tile --crty d1Cl not include this particular block or Mr . Issen's premises at 3365 South Broadway . It see~s to ~e that if a plan ~akes sense without the inclusion of this block why all of a sudden is it now necessary to include it . The only reason that I can determine is it must be the flow of things . We gotten this building in this block. let's go to the next and the next and the next and the next and ultimately try to bring new buildings and new properties to the City of Englewood . While the concept I agree with. let 's really look at it in terms of whether or not the City finds it necessary . The businesses in Englewood provide part of the tax base for the City of Englewood to operate . My client pays a significant amount of sales tax to this City . As he indicated before he was enticed to come back into Englewood by Mr . Kaufman. Fred Kaufman of Kaufman 's Mens Wear . I think you all kno111 the type of revenues. sales tax revenues. that Mr . Kaufman ability to generate for and on behalf of the City . My client Mr . Issen has a business that is the perfect complement to Mr . Kaufman's business in that between the two of them. they can provide clothing to virtually to any male in any size . Mr . Issen has noticed since he has moved here that the concept is working and his sales are generating tremendous revenues for the City and they will continue to do so . I have heard no evidence from anyone as to how many years a new business being put into Mr . Issen 's current location. how many years it will take that new business to generate the same type of revenues it is generating today , especially in light of the higher rents that are proJeCted for that type of property . And I believe that the sales taxes ~--------- ·-- _-" ...--- -------..._ ----- l ~:· 101 Ill, 1 .. ------j,l .. "I ------<,, "I " -____,h II• j !zt "'' b 12!.1 t· "' -12.1. I ,I Jul, ~- ---f'l ~·I· r:l t' ...!, ~'i ,, .. t~l ;.;~I '' ... ~· '""" --r..~,: ~ ------i~ ;'J:-_ !If: '1 F. ,. P'. l·~i --< . ~;" ~· l" i' • "' OT .. .. ~· {\ rJ • ....... ....._ ....... ( 0 0 .J generated n ow and that are proJected will far surpass any revenues th at _ might come at a later time when measured in today 's dollars . No one has --...-- indicated to me or to the Council, the Mayor that new is better . Wh y does n ew have to be better . The premises are there . They are sound . They are leased up . They are not old . They are filled wit h businesses generating money . I see no testimony before here the Council that indica te s anything to the contrary . Why is it beneficial? Because i t's ---.._~~· new? I submit to you that that is not enough reason . Again . our negotiations have come from a posture that negotiations from Brady to us . Theil have not come in a posture of hell • we 're sorry. we're hurting your business, we'd like to make you whole; but rather why should we spend more, we get it condemned we don't have to pa~ anythin ~ _And what happens in Mr . Issen 's case. if the property is conde•med . the provision in his lease indicates that any condemnation award belongs to the landlord that is Mr . Brady . So Urban Renewal is g C!_!ng to negotiate a some of mone11 to give us and Mr . Brady is going to get . That's not fai r . That's not right . MAYOR OTIS : The next name on the list Melinda Wetzsell . MELINDA WETZSELL : Council and Mr . _Mayor . ~y ~ame is Melinda Wetzsell . I'm the owner of Other Mothers ' Store in the downtown 3400 block of downtown . I'm a new business owner in Englewood and I 'm new to the politics of Englewood . But I 'm not so new as a citizen of En l!ewoo~. I chose to do my business in downtown Englewood not only because my family is here but because I like the feel o~ downtown . Of having a downtown as opposed to a plastic shoppette or shopping center . But also at least in my type of store, it's a budget store and that 's the economy that's in Englewood . It's not a healthy enough economy to support the -.,_ ._ --..._ -------- -l _]:I --Iii I -----J, ::1 .h jll 1 .. ~. h•l --~~ -t: " t' ) ,l•/ ~.; ,, 'I -,:I ,, -~~ --~ "'· 1>1 " ' in r.' -L~ ):I. " "" ~ t.! ~:: "' t•z 1,, • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL on I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE OBSERVER IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION ;:; /'r " ll A I J.~./1 ...., '// /· )jl !) t?•fl, /, < 7 d" / J'. ~ ~ u (J .:.N :::---v t_.---- /l.,~~L-33 ;1 ~ &r-~ , t}, _v __ -~----- ~ ~) J - -• • Ttx ~ fk_ ~ )if/'-'-vf' s/&b I= 1 1 . '>f!R~ /o ~ a-/1 . -fl. 3<>/7.. 5/IJ"-,~ I J,._,,. ()'"'-~ ~ ~r~~ -1usJ~ I • • • NAME ADDRESS / / .(i(f.~_J j i ~~0 &: (1,.. flo" ck PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCI-/L on ~~~-~~J ¥~ I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TELEPHONE OBSERVE~ IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION 19'}/yg33 / J 'nl~~-~~ .1D ~ .n~" ~ J.,-Lr £ / 7~fl" ~ -3J3.J 7<d'/ , 0 c/ --------.;;; .._ ---------_.;;:-=~------.. -- -• • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The ~ CITY cg~NCIL . ~~Cljf ~~ =#(p -~~co~ Ill"'" ~ I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL .iL NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE OBSERVER IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION c;~~e.. &~~.u 3.31-J s:;,--e, d. I.4J '1 7/,1. -Frol---~Ctt-A-fl.l) I . ~fl.ow....J -:;, ~1'17 4 . g r>w -1 . <6~o,7~~1 ....,.....,. v CDWIIIUJ /]. Lli £" 3. 3 II;. b-1 J?.H 12 /J 761-~t//(J 1-/ v Jil!!t·--fR id~ .33/0 So . /Jco~ ~ / • • ~ .-~-· .. - • • • • • • • - PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL on I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COU NCIL IN FAVOR IN IT ION 'f • - 7:00 P .M. 1. AM/sb • • • • • • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APRIL 30, 1984 ,(t b..V / '-\r\~ " (J 'iU.J Call to order, invocatioJ, pledge of allegiance, and roll call. Public Hearing. To consider Amendment No. 6 to the Engle- wood Downtown Redevelopment Plan. (Copies enclosed .) . • I • • • RESOLUTION NO. ~ SERIES OF 1984 • • • A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND TilE ENGLEWOOD DOWN-TOWN REDEVELOPHENT PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Englewood adopted a Downtown Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the Urban Renewal Statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, recent economic studies have indicated the need to amend the Plan to take advantage of current market potential; and WHEREAS, additional properties have been identified as necessary to be acquired for implementation of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Plan was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review to determine the Plan amendment conformance to the Comprehensive Plan; and WIIEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Conuni~;sion conducted a review of the proposed amendment on March 20, 1984, and concluded that the amend- ment is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; and WliEltEAS, offlciul notice has been given und public hearing hus been held on Harch 26, 1984, April 10, 1984, and April 30, 1984, to solicit comments on the proposed amendments to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as required by C.R.S. 31-25-107(d); NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that: Section 1. The proposed amendment to the Englewood Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan is deemed necessary to the successful implementation of the Plan and is considered beneficial to the community as a whole. Section 2. The document attached hereto as Exhibit A, "Amendment 6", is hereby approved and shall be incorporated into the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan on the property listing page and become a part thereof. • ~-. I • • • • • • -2- 1984. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _____ day of------- Eugene L. Otis, Mayor ATTEST: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution No, ___ , Series of 1984. Cary R. lligbee I • • EXHIUI'!' A Amendment 16 Address 3311 South Broadway Leases within the following properties: 3315 South Broadway 3333 South Broadway 3365 South Uroadway 3340 South Acoma 3370 South Acoma 3378 South Acoma 33 Hest Girard Av en ue • • • P. P. I. Number 1971-34-3-16-001 1971.-Jio-J-00-0:.!2 I • • - - • • r • RESOLUTION NO. 13 Series of 1 984---- • • • CITY OF ~NG L ~W OO D , COLORADO URll AN RENEW AL AUTHORITY h Rl\SOLUTION 0 1' Till\ I'NCJ.EWOOD UlliiiiN JlENl •:WAJ , IIU 'I'I IOI! I 'J'Y IICCJ •:I''I' INC l>llCm11 ·:N'I'II'J' ION Flt011 TH~ ll lWJ'{ UlN C:LO l'Ml!:NT COIH'OHA'UON ANU S . JlUU llHAlJY AS C:VlUl!:NCl!: 011 COUU FAo:TH NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE !ICQUTSITI ON OF l'ROPRR'l'Y fiND /O il 1.1•:/\SI\llOJ.n TN'I'I•:HJo:S'I'S AND R~COI1!1 END I N G TO CITY COUNCIL 'l'Hl!: LI STING OF SAID l'lWl' mnY AND Ll'hS l!:ll ULlJ INTERESTS IN THE ENGLEW OOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN . HHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority having rece·lvcu a rcquN;t from the rcu<.:v<.:lopcr;;, llrauy Ucvuloptucnt Corpurutluu unu !:: • lluu llrudy (her einafter referred to as "redeveloper"), that the properties descr ibetl in Exhib it A, which the redeveloper has been unable to acquire be de,;lgnatuu as proper ty necessary for implementation of the Englewood Downtown Redev elop - rn<.:n t Plan; and 1-n!EREAS , the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority hav Jng rev ll!w ed the rC!devc;l oper'~> doc\llncntcttlon Ita~; dctorntluc•d that tltc • TL't\('vc•lup•·r h.a •; ful[ l U~.:d it>: ubligutlu11s [ur goou [a Hit nugotlutluns pur;;uanL Lu Set.:L Lull 1 .2 of the Agreement fo ·r Rudc vcloplltcmt il o tw••c•n the Urh"n ll''"''w:tl Auli"''·J ty a11u Lh<.: rl!ul!vulopcr dated Novemlll!r :l, 1 'Hl:l; and \•lllEcl.IIS , Lln; Ur!Jull J(ull<.:wul AutlturlLy ltuvlug furthcr Ul!L<.:l"tlli.U<.:d that the properties set forth on Exhibit A are necessary for the implementa - tion of thee Engleev1oocl Downtown l{edevelopment Plan, and that con>iilltCtlt there;~ith a recommenclation should be ma de to the City Council of the City of EnglEMood; UOH, 'J'llERI'f'ORI ·., liE TT lli~SOLVJW, the Eng l cwoou Urhan llcnewal /,utlto r lt y itl!rl!hy r<.:CUIIIIIIClldo Lo tlt<.: Clty Council or the City ur l!:ngluwuud . t hat pursuant to the Agreement for Disposition and Redevelopment by and bet1·1een the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and Urady Development Cor- poration and S. Bud Brady dated November 2, 1983, the properties and leases cleslgnu tcd on Exltihlt A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are required to meet the objectives of the Englewood Down- tO\m Redevelopment Plan , FURTliElt , that salcl properties are necessary for the implementation of said Plan, and therefore recommend that the Englewood Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan be amended by adding to the list of properties designated for acquisition thoFJe properties set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto • ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 25th day of April, 19 8 4 • • I • • • • • - -2- ATTEST: Motion by: ____ ~su~s~a~n~~Vua~n~D~y~k~q~------------------------------ Voting in Favor: Lawrence Novicky, Susan Vanpyke. Melvin Minnick. Ruth Cole, Ja1nes Totton, John Neal Voting in Opposition:. __ ~N~o~n~e ________________________________________ _ Hembers Absent: Robert J , Voth l·le:J ub e; rs /\bs ta in ing : __ N_u_n_t! ______ ~---------------------------------- I • • • • D - • • ---------- gXHIUIT A Amendment 16 Address 3311 South Broadway Leases within the following properties: 3315 South Broadway 3333 South Broadway 3365 South Uroadwny 3340 South Acoma 3370 South Acoma 3378 South Acoma 33 West Girard Avenue • • • • P. P. I. Number 1971-34-3-16-001 1971-JII-J-00-02:.1 I . - - ( • ( • ....-.._ RESOLUTI ON NO. SERIES OF 1984 • • • A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND TilE ENGLEWOOD DOWN- TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Englewood adopted a Downtown Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the Urban Renewal Statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, recent economic studies have indicated the need to amend the Plan to take advantage of current market potential; and WHEREAS, additional properties have been identified as necessary to be acquired for implementation of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Plan was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review to determine the Plan amendment conformance to the Comprehensive Plan; and ~fEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a review of the proposed amendment on March 20, 1984, and concluded that the amend- ment is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, official notice has been given and public hearing has been held on March 26, 1984, April 10, 1984, and April 30, 1984, to solicit comments on the proposed amendments to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as required by C.R.S. 31-25-107(d); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that: Section 1. The proposed amendment to the Englewood Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan is deemed necessary to the successful implementation of the Plan and is considered beneficial to the community as a whole. Section 2. The document attached hereto as Exhibit A, "Amendment 6", is hereby approved and shall be incorporated into the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan on the property listing page and become a part thereof. • I • - - ( • ( • • • • -2- ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _____ .day of 1984. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor ATTEST: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the Ci ty of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution No, _____ , Series of 1984. Cary R. Higbee • I • • - ( ( • • • • • gxHIISI'1' II Amendment 16 Address 3311 South Broadway Leases within the following properties: 3315 South Broadway 3333 South Broadway 3365 South llroadwoy 3340 South Acoma 3370 South Acoma 3378 South Acoma 33 Hest Girard Avenue • P. P. I. Number 1971-34-3-16-001 197 1 -J~-J-00-0l l I • • • RESOLUTION NO. 13 Series of 1984-- • • • CI'l''t 01•' ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AU'l'llORI 'l"l A Rl~SOLUTION OF Tim 1\NCI.l\W OOD URilAN nt'.Nl':WAT. AU 'I'liOIIT'I 'Y ACCI WI' I Nl ! DOC:m11 ·:N'I'A'I' IU N l>'lWM Till:: lliUUJ't UI!:V I!:LOI'Ml::N T COIU'OIV.'l'lON ANU l>. llUU lliV.U't Al> I!:VlUI!:Nl:l!: 011 l:OOU Fil l:TH NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF l'ROPRR'l'Y AND/OH T.t•:AS 1\l!OI.ll TN'I'EIU •:STS AND ltEC011lo!ENDlNG '!'0 Cl'l''t COUNCIL 'l'HC: LIS'l'lNG 01" SAIU l'lWl' Wfl''t AND LI'ASI!:llOLlJ INTERESTS I N THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. ~IHE REAS, \:he Urban Renewal Authority having rece ·tvml a rcqii C',;t fru m tilt! ccu cvclupuc,;, llcu<.ly llcvulopmunt Coq>oL·ut ion un<.l l>. lluJ lletllly (her einafter referred to as "redeveloper"), that the properties described in Exhibit A, which the redeveloper has been unable to acquir e be <.leslgnatud as property necessary for implementation of the Englewood Downtown Red e ve l o p- me nt Plan; and HHEREAS , the En glewood Urban Renewal Aut ho r ity havjnp, t·cv i.cwc d the re::developc r' s tlocl\IIICntnt ·lon has tlcterud.nt•d tlo n t tll<• n •,lt•vvlopl'l' lo:.,; ful[j.lJ u<.l Hs obligations for goo<.! faHh ncgotiutions pun;unnt to Sc<.:t i.u 11 1..2 of the Aerecmc:nt for Retlcvcl.opu1cnt hut wcen the Ud>nn 1\l•m•wii ·l Aut ·l,uri ry anc.J Lhe:: re<.lcveloper dated November :.!, l \Jil3; u nc.J \lll"lti:A~•, Lhu Ur lwn lt unuwul Autl•ur lLy lwvlng further duLur ml nu d that the properties set forth on Exhibit A are necessary for the impl.ementa - Lion o f the Engle::wood IJ owntown Redevelopment l'lan, untl that t:on~:;istunt therewith a recomm endation should be made to the City Council of the City of J:n gl e~1ood ; l:OH , TllliRI\T'Oltl\, liE TT HI~SOT.VIlll , the l(ngl ewood Urhun Ht•ncwiil "uL io ur lLy lic.:cul>y cc.:<.:ulllllll!lluS to the Clty Count:li of the CiLy of l!:ngluwooc.J 1 t hat pursu ant to the Agreement for Disposition and Redevelopment by and beL\I E:e n the t.:n glewooc.J Urban Renewal Autho rity and Uracly Dev elopment Cor- poration and s. Bud Brady dated Novemb er 2, 1983, the properties and lea~es designa ted on l:xhihit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are required to meet the objectives of the Englewood Down- toHn Redevelopment Plan. FUR'l'llt::lt , that said properties are necessary for the implementation of said Plan, and therefore recommend that the Englewood Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan be amended by adding to the list of properties designated for acqul~ition tho"e properties Ret forth on gxhihit A attached hereto. ADOPTE D AND APPROVED THIS 25th day of April, 1984 • • I • • • ATTEST: ~?i-A.11\ ~1\e-'J Susan Powers - Executive Secretary -2- • • • Motion by:, _____ ~su~s~a~n~~v~a~n~D~y~k~e~----------------------------- Voting in Favor: Lawrence Novicky, Susan VanDyke, Melvin Minnick. Ruth Cole, James Totton, John Neal Vcting in Opposition: ___ N_o~n-•----------------------------------------- :·!emb ers Absent: Robert J, Voth 1-!e tnlH: rs Abstaining :_;_N.:.o.:.:.n.:.:.u ______ ~------------------------------------ • I • • - • • • • • EXHIIli'i' A Amendment #6 Address 3311 South Broadway Leases within the following properties: 3315 South Broadway 333 3 South Broadway 336 5 Sout h ll ro u<lwuy 334 0 So ut h Acoma 337 0 South Acoma 33 78 So ut h Aco ma 3 3 \-l e s t Gi rard Avenue • P. P . I. Num b e r 1971-34-3-1 6-001 1971-3/,_ J-00-0 2:.1 I . - • RESOLUTIO N NO , 13 Series of 1984---- • • • CI'!'¥ OF ENCLI!:WOOll , COLOitAllO UllliAN RENEWAL AUTI!ORIT¥ A RIIS OLU'riO N OP Tllll EN GL EW OOD URilhN llnNEWAl. AU 'I'llOHT'I'Y AC:C:I ·:I1'1' IN !! llOCIJ~11·:N'I'i\'l' I ON 1'1<011 '1'111!: IJ!WJ¥ 01\VI,LOI'M EN'I' COIU'OltA'1'10N ANO :; • IJUO IJIU\0¥ A:> EV WENC I!: Ul' COUll Fii ::TH NEGOTIATIONS FOR TI!E ACQUISITION OP PROPERTY AND/OH T.EASEIIOI.D TN'I'I •:I<I ·:ST~; AND RECOMMENDING 1'0 CI'I'¥ COUNCIL 'i'HJ;; LISTING 01•' SAID 1'1<01' 1\ln'¥ ANO LI\ASE II UJ.IJ INTERESTS IN THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. HllE REAS, the Urban Renewal. Author :l.ty hnvi.nr: rocei.vcd " n~qao c•>;l· [rum til a.: ra.:c.kva.:l.upC!r!l , Uru<ly U~.>vC!lopuacut Curpucutiuu un<l S. Uu<l IJt·uuy (hereinafter referred to as 11 redeveloper 11 ), that the properties described in Exhibit A, which the redeveloper has been unable to acquire be design at~.><l as pro p erty necessary for implementation of the Englewood Downtown Rcd evC'lor-mc,:nt Plan; and \-IHEREAS, th e Englewood Urban Renewal Authority hav i ng r e v tewC!d the: redevC:l.oper ' s documcntati.on lms c.leternd.ncd thnt the r.cc.levelopcr ha >: fulfill~;c.l it~ o bligations for goo<! fa ith negot.iat lum; pun;u<ant to Sea.:t luu 1.2 of the Agreemen t for Reclevelorment between the Urbun Rcncwul. Autho rit y and the rC:devC:loper d a ted November 2, 1983; und v/IIJ ·:Ju:As , Lit(! UriJiJn f(C..:UC!Wu l AuthuriLy hi.lv l ug LUL'ther UCtC!l'lllilll.>d that the p ro p erties set forth on Exhibit A are necessary for the implementa- tion of the Englewoo d Downtown Redevelopment l'lan, and that con~;istent therewith a recommen dation should be made to the City Council of the City of Cngl e Hood; I:OH , 'l'llEREl'OHil , Ill\ T'J' ftES OLVIID, th e l ~nglewood Urhnn Rcncwnl /,uLJI()riLy IIL:r~;l>y rC!C.:UIIIIIIl!ll<b; Lo tit.., Clty Couna.:iJ u[ LhC! City u[ 1 \u~J.cwouc.l , that purs uant to the Agreement for Disposition and Redevelopment by and be t~1e:en the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and IJrady Developu1ent Cor- poration and s. Bud Brady dated November 2, 1983, the properties and lc,:ase:!; deslgnatcd on Exhibit A attached hereto und incor porated herein by reference are required to meet the objectives of the Englewood Down- toa.m Redevelopment Plan. I'UHTIIEit, that sald prupertil!s are necessary for the illlplementation of said Plan , and therefore recommend that the Englewood Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan be amended by adding to the list of properties designated for acquisition those properties set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto • . · ADOPTED AND AP PROVED THIS 25th day of April, 1984, • I • • • ATTEST: Susan Powers Executive Secretary -2- Motion by: Susan VnnJl,¥-YAkJO<' ____ _ • • • Voting in Favor: Lawrence Novicky, Susan VanDyke, Melvin Minnick. Ruth Colt!, Voting in Opposition: _______________________________________________ __ l1ern b ers Ahs en t: Robert J, Yo th 1·\e tnb ers Abstaining : _____________________________ _ .· • I • • - • I~Xll"!lll'l' 1\ Amendment 16 Address 3311 South Broadway Leases within the following properties: 3315 South Broadway 3333 South Broadway 3365 Sou th Bro a dw ay 3340 South Acoma 3370 South Acoma 3378 South Acoma 33 Hest Girard /\venue • • • • P . P . I. Number 1971 -'}11-1-16 -001 lY/J-]4-J-UU-UL L .· I . - • • AGEN DA ITEM --- ('c L c t [ --!7 . t ~L_J {!)_~ n-~~~ IJJ_~~L ~ ry &-L~f-' ~--h; w~~o rf~YvJ.-. ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded _!!l_!lO!l_ Nea_!_ vobeida We_! st J!J !.2.. Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • • • f): cfD()J'rn . PRESENTED BY ----- Ayes Nay Absent Abstain I . • • • - • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain "1gaay _,_.......- Neal 1-- Vobe i da _k- Weist v-- Bllo v-- Brads hew v- Otis ~ MOTION : • I • • • • • • • AGENDA I TEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL ~ved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain lfTqdaY Neal Vobe1da We st L7 Bl lo v Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I • • • • • - • • .~ AG ENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain "1gaav Neal Vobei da Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . . • • • • • ·+L.e.. .... AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ ROLL CALL Koved Seconded Ayes ~Y Absent Ab t I s a n Higaav Neal Vobe1da Weist Bllo Bradshw Otis MOTION: I . • • • • - • • AG~ ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgdav Neal Vobe,da Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM ----P RESENTED BY ------- St~_,f'(A_ci ya..~ti r> L ~ r . ~'~-t "e~ -~) /ll.-1<.1M ~ j ( i{'l t. {L 0o .-!-~ vo 6 -YIU ~ (jt ~ c...e.u c. £)..~ t ~ , ~'1_ t'----r/<J ·t14 1_ ft. d. Ll ....U.. ~ ~f;.j . (( l -~0"¥ j~ ---~cur~._~J -...!... c. t .L. -'16 ,{_~ 7JL--0 { ..,l.-"'--()...L <---tr'vd-d-~-<..-(._.{ -c-l...., L.-----~ ji_-e;tt..._ '{_; cv C). .., f L----t~ -t -u /)LeU :_3 ( · -' • • r tJ' f-4" S L' " lJ \ <'--r ~ \,._,o,.. I (.. C ' ---1 ~ , L .,~_. ... • s- Hoved 11..<.' • " Seconded Hlclday Neal Vobe,da Wei s t Bl lo Br adshaw Ot i s MOTION: • • --- ~ L l I . . • - • • AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY -------- (?L' ~'-.L -// -;:-n , /0_ .... '7-v -:..ft.u .. . tt. · 1!. c -1:£. u.Ll (J._&~ .._) L (. ;2_ I~ ~r-< );. 1"1 -/Y"-rr-' ~ ' C.t· ... l-- ,-/)Lo:. oe ;.._ r/ I L lJ - c-1 /lY'. ~1_(, L.. z z 'Y 1_ ROLL CALL 1 (!""{[~ < J-1l U . ( Hoved Seconded Ayes Mly Absent Hladav Neal Vobe,da Weist Bllo Brads h.., Otis MOTION : • I . . • • "'• ( 'J ) r (' • • • • -- AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- k.r 1 --<--( '1'1t.tt tl<-J ~·uJ ~ -1\\. L ,1 ~.._... C 'l.Lt (iC u /<-' f-l 'l.-t 1\-(. Lll -, } II '?1-L £.. () (-3 37 '~ {j_ ~~~~ 4-- _;(JA-- ---"'\~. f. /"UL c_~· ~ ~ ' _,.<_.-')L~ ._ .. .._ U-"1_•-._ ~ ~ --r Lt -{ -~ e. ./_( -v--{_ <._ u /) ~ 4< -' tfi. 'U... ( ~ __;:_., ,;L-f0 A ~- l L ,ri:..t 'lJ.J ., O i._ L. (r ~').~-( { --, ~/_ U .. lf c..·-' {l ........... Hoved Seconded Ayes Kly Absent Hlgday Neal Vobe;da We st Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . • • - • • AGENDA ITEM ---- Moved Seconded Ayes May Absent Abstain HTQd•v Neal Vobe1da Weist BIIO Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . . • • - • AGENDA ITEM ---- ~~~'3 -/)){' _11l~ xu...~ r '\...L..- --~l __ /LC ~.4- Moved MOTION: 0 /(. -) • ?U-<- (.J~r $L /)o ROLL CALL Seconded HTCIGay Neal Vobe 1da Weist Bllo Bradsh- Otis • • • .. <! PRESENTED BY ------- 1--;a 5/ -' ~ we&~; u u_.i ttl~ Abstain I . . • • - • • PRESENTED BY ------- AGENDA ITEM :;[. -" ( 1 ' . / ~ 0 ( -l l •. C. t > 1:" I/( l_ ::J /)'-.!--./.. ..L ') U L ' .. ROLL CALL Koved Seconded Ayes Kly Absent Absta in Hlgday Meal Vobe-lda Wei s t Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . • • ---- AGENDA ITEM ----______. Moved Seconded MOTION : Hlgday Meal vob e,da Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis • • • PRESENTED BY ------- Ayes May Absent Abstain I . • - L J • • • • • • PRESENTED BY ------AGEN DA ITEM ---- -1 .1l I~ (•--,.._ lu~ C _1 ~' .1 ~ ~v ~CJv-)£_ fl.-~ 1<-- ./" '"\._l frv---1--c [ /L-~1.--u ~~tJL~ l'f ~.r --~r. ~ l - t~~ .-£~_. ... c '-"-...KJ-<-- ROLL CALL t Ac"~ U'tt fa:_ '1 [v_L b...r)_L &-fl-J--l (/L c_ ,_ { . (, <;; (~ /t{/L.. Seconded A yes May Absent Abstain l'lo ved Hlgoav Meal vobe-,da Wei s t Rl lo - Bradshew Otis MOTION: • I . • • • • AGENDA I TEM ----P RESENTED BY ------- - ·'J 6 t Lj._{ ) t t )2. 1 -L-v j ' __,...._. cr- /1 "--'--ilL OJJJ .J, s. -z s J?" \. ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes M.y Absent Abstain Hlgday ....- Neal y- Vobe i da r- Weist ,__ Bi lo v-- Bradshaw v-- Otis ,__.. MOTION: I . • • - • •' - --- AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ~Oll CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Absuln Hlgday Neal Vobe,da Weist Bi lo Bradsh- Otis MOTION: I . • • - ( • • • • AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- ({/ ~ '-(& 0 f2---L-(_ -l-_) t \ jflh _,t., cb-t; d-(h~._;;_ _, -~( • tJ' ttL i )). '?--< J-' ]L (_ ( ,2_ /2 c:U__1:t {( l c_ ,J.. '--fc 6 v-{ Hoved Seconded MOTION: "lgOiiY Nul Vobe1da Weist Bllo Br•dsh- Otis -~7 -1 ·; -( ( r I J' f(. ; ~ (. c- I to...,'-"'\.-(A....J ..... ~- Ayes Kly Absent • I . • - • • ROLL CALL Koved Seconded Ayes ~Y Absent AbsUin HTgday Neal Vobe,da Weist allo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . • • • - AG ENDA ITEM I r {A <-~--- /'{~ @~~~ .);)U t ._-:~_:_ }._l c (fr ---- 1 .L€1. 1F /) -.c L--,A. -J' t.,__ I r . •~ " 6 C: ( ( ( I -' Hoved MOTION: • td 2 'U~ t Seconded Hlqday Neal Vobe,da Weist Bllo Bradsh- Ot i s p_ -'\()J ROLL..J CALL ' -' • • - P RESENTED BY ------- tL L(f[ -I - f.."-...£ ~ (p.. -' . _.L.( -l ~.., /1 ~1' L C ~ . "o< (.<X.-( Ayes Nay Ab sent Abstain ) I I I I I \. • I . • • • • AGENDA ITEM -----P RESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Kly Absent AbstaIn 1/ Hlgday Neal Vobe,da Wei s t Bi lo v Bradshaw Otis MOTION: J t O .,Jc I • • • • • - • • ....... ---~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQday Neal Vobe1da Wei s t Bl lo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . . • • • • • AGENDA ITEM -----P RESENTED BY ___.-____ __:::::_ /? t (_ t'IU ' -<'-.. / ~L L Cv. -~ .J)l• ( G-v-----<-<A-~ { ....-<, ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Ab sent Abstain Hlgday Neal Vobe1da -We st -Bi lo -Bradshaw Ot is MOTION: • I • • ----------- (L • •