Loading...
09-29-05 Town Council Minutes Town of Snowmass Village Town Hall Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes September 29, 2005 John Wilkinson: Made opening remarks thanking committee members for their service and encouraging a thorough and thoughtful review of the issues. Leslie Lamont: Invited Committee members to offer brief introductions and their current perspectives on the Town Hall issue. Sub-committee member perspectives: Leah Moriarty Watch meetings from home. Thought this should be at the rodeo - really listened “sat on a rock” - so much time in Entryway. New opinion makes sense in “Core” up here. Moriarty and I keep talking. All started with new entrance. Ted Grenda Concerned about “rush to judgment.” The Center process is slowing decision. Suggested stepping back and delaying the Town Hall decision. Jack Kennedy In same camp, somewhat, as Leah. Displacement is an issue at the rodeo. He is here to learn and listen and gather an understanding of how people feel about town hall and the importance of town hall - just here to learn. Also feels the committee needs to know what kinds of opportunities exist regarding potential development partnerships between Meridian Pacific and the Town. Stan Kornasiewicz He is present to take a look at all the facts and then make a decision as to whether or not it makes sense and where town hall should be located. T. Michael Manchester He is present today with a focus on the process and suggested that discussions be conducted and then re-evaluate the information gathered. Funding needs to be addressed; there are many attributes in a town hall incorporated as many parts. An alternate is only important when a vote is taken and stated that he preferred that a deferred decision be considered until Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Member Steven Rausch could be present to vote. As for the Purpose Statement - he agreed! Leslie Lamont: Discussed Ground Rules, the Agenda, and procedures regarding Public Comment. Ground Rules 1. A. Agree to start and end the meetings on time. B. Be hard on the topic of discussion not the person discussing issue C. Stay on the topic D. Use the “parking lot” E. Please wait (raise your hand) to be acknowledged F. No side-bar conversations G. Who ya gonna call? – Jason Haber, Mike Segrest, Leslie Lamont TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 The committee agreed to adopt the Ground Rules. Agenda 2. The agenda was presented and adopted, with modifications, for September 29, 2005. Public Comment 3. The Committee agreed that public comment will be taken in a flexible manner during discussion rather than waiting until a prescribed time. Provided that the amount of public wishing to speak does not grow too large, then a more organized fashion for public input will be discussed. Future Meeting Dates (to be held in Council Chambers, unless otherwise noted): 9/30 – 12-2PM 10/3 – 1-4PM 10/5 – 3-6PM (Alpine Bank) 10/7 – 3-6PM 10/10 – 3-6PM 10/11 – 12-3PM 10/12 – 3-6PM Purpose Statement The committee discussed the proposed Purpose Statement, which reads as follows: “The Town Hall Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee has been created to review all prior work and analyses related to the proposed Snowmass Village Town Hall. The Committee is to make a final recommendation to Town Council, based on that review, by no later than October 17, 2005. The Committee may choose to consider any and all aspects of developing a Town Hall for Snowmass Village, including, but not limited to: site selection, site planning, building design and programming, project financing, and overall need for such a facility. Furthermore, the Committee may identify a need for additional analysis to be provided in order to form a final recommendation, and may identify new options and alternatives for Council consideration.” The Committee agreed to adopt the Purpose Statement as proposed. Public Comment Jeff Tippett Use of the current building was at one time cheaper to lease versus building a town hall. He stated concern that cost implications were NOT part of opening comments and stated that he believes there is a dramatic savings of money to renting. He thinks that the space is okay and that the “financial deal” is a fabulous opportunity to remain in this building now and in the long term. He thinks that it is fine if the Sub-committee chooses to build a town hall - he can get behind this but what is the price difference. He further 2 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 stated that the governing body has chosen the most expensive alternative so he will vote NO, since this is a half-baked issue. He further stated that he would be looking at the costs involved every step of the way. In 1978 the lease was $------- per square foot. The Town of Snowmass Village commitment was to locate in current office space, which was what made the Center happen! Barry Peters Stated that his interest as a Committee Member stemmed from purely from his desire to utilize his financial banking experience in an effort to help analyze the issue of leasing versus purchasing. He stated that there are three categories to consider, including the economical analysis, qualitative - town hall nexus with Town Square and the legal implications. The Town of Snowmass Village needs a physical environment for community gathering and conducting government business. Jack Kennedy Questioned the notion of whether renting is really cheaper? In response, Barry Peters stated that he does NOT believe so. T. Michael Manchester explained that the Committee should first address the question of whether to have a town hall or not and made motion to that effect. Further discussion was tabled until the next meeting. Stan Kornasiewicz Stated that the first question we should ask is whether or not the Town should lease or purchase a town hall building. NOTE: The Committee took a break and reconvened the Meeting at 10:40 a.m. Stan Kornasiewicz Requested further clarification on the question of whether to lease a building or purchase a building; i.e., does locating Town Hall at the Snowmass Center = lease/rent, and locating Town Hall at another site (i.e., the Point/Draw, etc…) = own/lease? The Committee Alternate: The Alternate issue was addressed at this time with the Committee consensus to not have an Alternate, implement limited voting and report all opinions. All opinions will be expressed and relayed to the Town Council. If votes are taken majority and minority opinions will be relayed to the Town Council and consensus will be attempted in most cases. Mr. Grenda reserved, if necessary, the ability to review consensus vs. vote at a later date. T. Michael Manchester Raised the importance of considering the process to create a new town hall versus continuing to lease as in the current condition? He pointed out the factor of the impending Snowmass Center redevelopment project. 3 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 Importance of having a Town Hall? T. Michael Manchester Stated that this is a maturing community and that it is appropriate to want to control destiny. The current facility will go away and come back but we don’t know details. We need to control design to maximize community access and participation in governance process. Stan Kornasiewicz Stated that from a financial perspective, that buying is preferred for the long-term commitment to the community. He commented on the notion of stand alone versus condominiumizing and requested more analysis. Jack Kennedy Commented on the pride of ownership and stated that it has a significant value. We should take advantage of the available government financing mechanisms. Kennedy agreed that ownership is the preferred position to be involved with. Steven Rausch Agreed that ownership is the preferred position and commented in favor of building a Town-owned building to retain control and ensure long-term stability, as well as create a sense of identity and permanence. Ted Grenda Stated that he is uncomfortable with the timing of the Committee formation because of inadequate amount of time to fully consider the issues. He stated that he thinks that there should be two years to consider the issue of whether to be in favor of a new town hall. Leah Moriarty Stated that it is important for the next generation to have a nice place to meet - inviting space - encourages participation - creates a welcoming environment in which to participate in Town governance. Committee consensus was that the Town should control their destiny and build an “independent” Town Hall in an ownership or lease to purchase scenario. Town Manager Mike Segrest Stated that the challenge in redeveloping the Center is logistics. Construction could begin within 12 to 18 months. The Town offices may be displaced, at least temporarily but Town offices are not included in the Center plans. There is an option to Condominiumize, but without additional square footage, without any expansion capability, and in an undesirable location near the trash dumpsters and loading docks. He stated that staff could update the Bond financing costs relating to the cost analysis to reflect current structuring. Under the current triple-net lease, Town pays all maintenance. 4 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 T. Michael Manchester Questioned whether any of the potential sites dictate the financing mechanism preferred? Stan Kornasiewicz Had Budget questions referring to 10% soft costs/design - 10% FFE - 80% building costs, costs per square footage? Ted Grenda Questioned whether the land costs have been factored in? Mike Segrest Stated that building costs are estimated to be the same at the Point/Draw and Entryway and building costs of the need for sheltered parking. He further stated that it could be less if surface parking was approved. Barry Peters Questioned whether it would be feasible to consider a two-year plan for this project? In response, Mike Segrest stated that with the current plan it would take 18 months to arrive at occupancy and if redesigned, the Town would likely be looking at occupancy in the year 2008. Also, if the Ballot issue is defeated the Town could put it back on the Ballot next year; we don’t have to wait two years. T. Michael Manchester The discussion has been going on for several years already and the process has not been rushed in the past two months. He stated that the Point Site has been a part of the equation for approximately two years and that options have been part of the discussions. Now that we are at a real decision making point it gets difficult for people to feel comfortable “now it gets real”. Ted Grenda Reemphasized that we are making important choices whether town hall should be at the Point/Draw versus the Entryway and the financing strategy. But why does the community feel rushed? Two Councils have had the discussion of all options regarding what to do with the Point. There has been a lot of prior discussion. Now - there is a realization that the community is facing approximately $50MM in potential bonding, these include both state and local government issues. T. Michael Manchester Questioned whether it is appropriate to liquidate public assets to fund community infrastructure? The community did not want to sell rights to develop the Entryway and preferred to retain ownership for public park and recreational use. The Town Hall bond 5 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 issue would result in no change to actual annual household tax payment; however, the current tax rate would be extended over a longer period of time. DRAW ONLY -VS- POINT/DRAW Point/Draw Preserves option to develop the Point site Less visible/ less prominent site Complexity of selling the Point site Contingent sale contract (contract zoning?) Sell the Point at diminished value without a guarantee of entitlement Stan Kornasiewicz Point site appraisal - Based upon Aspen comps - does not factor in site limitations - i.e. buildability, proximity to roads – generally questioned the appraisal methodology. In order to arrive at a more realistic value, the proper approach should have been to back in to the deal, considering what would one expect as payback on a potentially approvable building, factoring in current lease rates, construction costs, etc...? Cost Implications - Underground Parking at $25 - $50K per Space Stan Kornasiewicz Commercial project = 67 spaces = Approx. $3.3MM - $6.8MM land cost - Building costs at $300 per square foot for 20K square foot bldg. = $6MM - Assume 7% cap rate - Estimates break-even lease rate at $65 per square foot, which is just about - double the going rate in Snowmass Stan Kornasiewicz What if we limit the building to 10K square feet and land value drops to $1.5 million? How does that affect thoughts on whether to sell, bank, or develop Town Hall on the Point site? Jack Kennedy & T. Michael Manchester Agreed that appraised value associated with 20K square feet of development is not realistic based upon the following: 1) It appears that the appraisal was intended for specific result associated with land swap (questionable methodology). 2) Doubts that the Town could sell the Point at full value without a contingent contract. 3) Site constraints - how do they limit real development potential? 6 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 The Committee agreed that the land trade of Parcel F and Government 45 (the Point) was fair, but that the validity of the assessed value of the Point may be discussed at a future date. Question of the Option of Pre-packaged sale? Mel Blumenthal Commented on the valuation and stated that the Point appraisal was based upon the Town’s land use designation for the site. He stated his belief that the higher and better use of the Point property would be for residential development. If we are able to find an alternative site for Town Hall and leave the decision on the Point site for another day, or explore the options to join forces with the Center developers, that would be sufficient for many people currently opposed to the Point/Draw option. He also stated that the committee should take the question regarding the appropriateness of the Point appraisal and sale discussion off the table. Stan Kornasiewicz Stated that we need to move forward based upon realistic valuation at the Point site because commercial may not be the best use. T. Michael Manchester Questioned whether the “Draw only” option really exists? There are design concerns to address relating to parking. He commented on the following points : 1) Image presented by having the town hall tucked behind town homes 2) Do we sell Town assets to finance infrastructure? 3) What is the difference in considering value of the Draw site versus the Point site? What is the relative difference when construction costs and opportunity costs are fully considered? Steve Rausch Questioned whether there is a benefit to the Town in holding onto high-value assets, such as the Point property. Mike Segrest Stated the following: 1) Holding or selling an asset such as the Point would not impact the Town’s bond rating. 2) The value of having a better site for the Town Hall should also factor into the equation. 3) If value of the Point is $6 million, should the Town hold it? And how about if it is only $1.5 million? 4) Is the improved town hall site/design worth that potential dollar amount? 5) How do government offices affect the fabric of the Town core? 6) In terms of valuation, what is the impact of building an access road on the Point site, in terms of development potential – possible reduction of the buildable square footage? Is there a potential for increased value in providing access to the site? 7 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 Stan Kornasiewicz Stated that he believes the swap was a fair trade. He also feels that segregating the Point site would not generate the appraised value for that piece, but that in combination with the Draw, the total value would likely approximate the combined appraised value for both. Mel Blumenthal Stated that in order to analyze true cost of various sites one needs valuation to base fully costed analysis. He posed the following questions: 1) Was the trade of Parcel F for Point a fair trade? Yes, the issue is off the table! 2) But Town Hall development or private development could impact current valuation (+ or -). 3) Lease option may still work in a newly built town hall building based upon comparison of the lease purchase option and free standing building option. 4) Banking the Point site will result in increased value after Base Village comes online. T. Michael Manchester Wrapped up comments relating to location concept and stated that the Town of Snowmass Village is a resort community of full and part-time residents, visitors, employees and retirees, which is a special mix. Everyone in the community should have the opportunity to participate in the Town government issues and town hall should be in the core of the town. We should stay away from the Rodeo site due to loss of social fabric. The Comp. Plan and Ben Wood desire town hall to be located within the core of town and there are social considerations involved. Town hall is a great opportunity to generate/create year-round vitality. The next best alternative is Lots 5 & 6, which keeps the core close to activities but is not as good a location as the Point/Draw. The Draw/Point site is better connection to most of the community’s daily services and activities. Ted Grenda Stated that Lots 5 & 6 should be explored “seriously” because there is a potential to offer town hall parking and other amenities there. Parking Lot (items the committee identified as requiring further analysis or as additional information): thth Revisit meeting time for 11 & 10 1. How do specific site locations alter the preferred financing strategy for town hall? 2. What is the anticipated cost per square foot – compared to lease. 3. What is the building cost at the Rodeo? 4. As a public policy is it appropriate to sell public assets to fund community 5. infrastructure? Is Nov. Ballot language the right way to fund the town hall given everything else 6. on the Ballot? Need to have a discussion to weigh all the sites/alternative locations 7. (philosophically). 8 TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES 09-29-05 Is there a way to package a pre-approved development and then sell it to a 8. developer? Review site plan, floor plan, and architecture of town hall on Point/Draw, which 9. will bring the committee up to this point in the design process. Respectfully Submitted By: FOR: Jason Haber Economic Resource Director 9