Tonight the Lafayette Planning Comission will review the sketch plan for Lowe's at a public hearing. There may not be many fireworks; it may be too soon for opposition to comment in any detail other than re-hashing the general sentiment of inappropriateness heard during the February election. An April 9 neighborhood meeting and subsequent public notices of this meeting have not elicited any comments so far.
A related story to this is the recent outline of the study to re-route Hwy 7 to the north, such that the traffic heading west on that road from Broomfield and Erie could be re-routed north on a new section of road up to Arapahoe near Hwy 287. This would deflect a lot of traffic away from the north end of Lafayette's old town, decreasing the traffic on Baseline Rd.
In theory.
Some details from Lafayette.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I aske the Public Works director about where the money would come from and by when in order to move ahead on the results of the study in 2010. Here is his response:
That is the $64,000 question....no pun intended........This is on the DRCOG 2035 Vision Plan...which means that no funding is available....we will have to leverage future revenues with CDOT/DRCOG to build the by-pass...............
What this means is that Lafayette will have to come up with a lot of bucks and as you can see, it isn't clear if and when. So as I said before, I don't expect a lot of traffic mitigration to occur on Hwy 7 in and out of town for a long time.
P.S. Lowes did hold a neighborhood meeting as Dan said. The city requires property owners who live within 750 feet of the site to be notified. Only a couple folks live within the 750 feet. They were the only ones who knew about the meeting.
How about some visionary thinking on this realignment instead of just reactionary thinking in the form of "we don't have the money".
The increased traffic thru Lafayette in the past several years, make's this kind of a no brainer. The traffic is only going to get heavier.
A new, wider, realigned CO 7 with adjoining sales tax generating properties would be a good enhancement.
Work should already be under way locally on the best routing and on re-zoning the surrounding properties.
Lafayette and Erie should be proactive on this project and driving it. If we wait for the county or the state to drive it, it won't happen soon enough.
The "lot of bucks" needed for the study, and possible participation in the realignment cost, will come back to the towns in multiples if the planning is done proactively.
Or, taking the typical local government approach, let's not do anything until it costs us way more to do so, and we have little say on how it's done.
Today's Camera article says that Lafayette, Erie and other affected cities have to commit $50,000 to the CDOT study by June 1. Where do Lafayette and Erie stand on getting this money together so the study can begin?
Lafayette has the $50k earmarked in the 2008 budget. I am looking to see if we can get this moved to this year. While the CDOT way may take longer, they will ultimately fund it, not Lafayette. What it will take is consistent pressure on CDOT and DRCOG for the long haul, as we are competing with larger municipalities for scarce funding. CDOT agreeing to look at it is a big step, gets it on their radar screen and in the queue.
Dok,
Hwy 7 is a state highway and CDOT controls it. Lafayette is not even allowed to patch the potholes between 287 and the eastern town border. Rerouting would require acquiring the land, perhaps by emminent domain, which only CDOT can do. Remember the current thinking is through Erie.
Erie has currently said they aren't interested in the by-pass. That was stated publicly during the Lowes debate and could be a casualty of the pro Lowes vote. Maybe they will change their mind and fund their study contribution in their 2008 budget. You should look at Moore's web site to see what their focus is on Hwy 7. Was a surprise to me. It is not the by-pass.
So today we have an unwilling partner (Erie) due to Lowes, a slow as molasses controlling CDOT, and no money. Remember the pro Lowes folks thought Erie was bluffing. Now we will see.
To make it even more complicated, if the city commits some or all of the tax revenue from Lowes for the by-pass, then it impacts any bonding we do to repair our roads.
If anyone can figure out how to break through this mess, let me know.
Realigning CO 7 will create the highest volume east/west route through this part of the county.
But local government is going to acquiesce to CDOT’s timing? At CDOT speed the realignment won’t happen for 10 years. The need is here today, not 10 years from now. Plus, local governments will be losing out on sales tax revenue from adjacent commercial development that should follow a major thoroughfare. (Perhaps a source for joint funding to speed the process?)
Hopefully, Lafayette, Erie, and Boulder County will be more proactive than just being glad to get it on the radar screen.
Kerry,
My latest post was held up because of a power outage due to lightning. My earlier response, therefore, seems a little out of context. Sorry.
Having trouble seeing what you're talking about on Moore's website. Only mention I find about Hwy 7 relates to the intersection of County Line and Hwy 7.
Erie's participation, or willingness to participate, could change overnight. Seems the Trustees are currently having a hard time finding an identity other than Mr. Moore's.
Practically speaking, the realignment will impact Erie nearly as much as Lafayette, but in different ways. Certainly Erie doesn't have a traffic issue similar to Lafayette's. But, the realignment could positively impact Erie.
If the realignment route were determined, re-zoning done to accomodate commercial development at key intersections, and if there was a sales tax sharing agreement between Erie and Lafayette, perhaps this thing could get legs.
What better way to attract CDOT attention than to show neighborhing cities working together.
That sounds right Dok. Erie very likely would benefit from the bypass. It is in their best interest to participate in the process.
Also, I don't remember anyone thinking Andrew Moore was bluffing when he stepped into the Lowe's debate. Meddling is more like it.
Dok,
http://www.mooreinfo.us/Newsletter/2007%205%20%20Highway%207%20Signalization.html
Moore and the Erie Trustees came out against Lowes. He called all the council members who told him to stuff it (except me). Moore and Berry trashed each other. Discussions on revenue sharing fell apart. Moore was accused of meddling. I pointed out that the by-pass was for now a myth because of the councils public support (except me) of Lowes.
Earlier (2003) Lafayette had imposed a non-resident fee on Erie folks to use our Library. They threatened to boycott Lafayette businesses. (I had to push to get that rescinded.)
The by-pass land is in Erie. It's ag land now. They control the zoning. It would cost $6M to rework 119th. According to our city admin, CDOT is spending most of its money on the big stuff, etc.
We don't have the money.
I'm the only councilor Moore will talk to now. I saw him and their city manager at a Habitat for Humanity meeting a month ago.
This is all interconnected and can't be treated as independent events. You can read the spin from my peers. For now, Erie doesn't care.
Moore's Hwy 7 focus is rightfully where there are the most pressing issues. Traffic on Hwy 7 between 119th and I-25 is increasing dramatically, and gets heavier as you get closer to I-25. Signalization, widening, and reduction of the speed limits are all needed.
I can understand why Erie's focus is not on the bypass. Traffic west of 119th on Hwy 7 doesn't impact Erie.
However, when Erie realizes the bypass will offer them commercial opportunities, they'll be interested.
In the meantime, the Lowe's location will only exacerbate the traffic problem thru Old Town Lafayette. And, when Hwy 7 east of town is 4 lanes up to the city limits, it'll get even worse.
So, despite the posturing now, both towns will need to co-operate to make the bypass a reality.
P.S. Does Lafayette have a plan to do something with the Lowe's building when Lowe's moves to Erie in 15 years?
Dok,
Call it what ever you like. Hopefully Erie will chip in on the study. After that, get your crystal ball out.
Yes, installing the by-pass would move a lot of Erie traffic north to Arapahoe. The downside is that it is a by-pass which usually hurts retail in the area being by-passed, i.e. So. Boulder Road after 287 was moved, paved, and widened.
Kerry,
Am I to read into your comment a little fear on the part of Lafayette in losing sales tax revenue, and, by extension perhaps Lafayette is the entity who doesn't want to participate in the bypass discussion?
Might also suggest why Lafayette is drooling over itself on the Lowe's store, even though the location is terrible.
Very simplistic to blame any drop in retail sales on So. Boulder Rd. on the realignment of 287. I'd be inclined to place the blame on a poor performing grocer on the north side and very poor performing retailers on the south side. If WalMart was impacted it would be because of the age of their store since they're a destination retailer.
I'd also submit this is greatly the fault of prior Lafayette councils. The 287 realignment route was planned 30 years ago. Seems the retail at Countryside Village should've been located closer to the new 287 alignment rather than So. Public in anticipation of the realignment. Another example of short term planning with long term impacts. Now, Lafayette has to pay for urban renewal because of poor planning several years ago.
This same lesson may be learned with the Lowe's location. Thus, my earlier question about what the city will do with the Lowe's location when Lowe's relocates in 15 years. Has anybody discussed the long term impacts?
Since there aren't many retailers on Baseline, moving Hwy 7 traffic away from Baseline won't have much impact on sales tax revenue. A huge positive impact is to move the traffic away from the elementary school. Overall, less traffic on Baseline thru Lafayette will enhance the quality of life for all residents living on that route. Not sure quality of life is enough to get the city to care, though.
Lafayette's biggest fear is that the Hwy 7 realignment will take traffic east on Arapahoe all the way to County Line and reconnecting to the existing Hwy 7 near the water treatment plant. That would effectively leave the new Lowe's in a not so good location.
But, since the intersection near the water treatment plant needs a major overall as well, this realignment route makes a lot of sense. Solve 2 problems in one project.
Certainly, this issue is very complex. And, I'm sure I'm missing some important points. But, am I understanding it?
Dok,
You raise all good questions. I just wanted to point out the oxymoron of the bypass. I am not a retailing expert but have been told time and again it is "location, location, location."
Has this oxymoron of the by-pass been talked about at city hall? Not to my knowledge. Probably because no one thinks it will happen in our lifetimes. Has there been any discussion of the points you make? Not in any meetings I've attended.
My point is that Erie and Thorton are working hard to have Erie, COAnthem, et al to go east to spend, not west to Lafayette. Add in Erie's new Library and Rec Center, the question becomes does Lafayette just become a city for the residents east to just drive through. The by-pass would facilitate that.
The myth with Lowes is that Vista Ridge and AnthemCO folks live half way between Lafayette and the existing and new retail development to the east. There is ongoing heavy marketing to have them go east (DAVECO was handing out discount coupons at the Erie Town Fair). The city accepted Lowes' argument that if they build it, they will come. Five city council members jumped on the band wagon on day one.
There were no numbers to look at because they had not asked for a deal. I said if Lowes is so sure of the sales tax numbers it was talking about, guarantee a yearly payment of that amount to the city. They wouldn't do it.
Also you can be darn sure Lowes wants the west side of town to shop at its new store, jamming up E. Baseline and putting ACE out of business.
When I asked about the assumptions about the road bonding, a 10 year commitment, one of those is what happens if Albertsons closes or a Wal-Mart pops up five miles away, or non-resident buying from the east declined. No answer.
In the private world, borrowing $6.8M would require a major study. In Lafayette, a two page spread sheet with no list of assumptions.
So finally not getting anywhere and being told I'm preaching Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, I've told the city admin and staff saying its their compensation and staffing at risk here. If you don't get it right, the money won't be there as in 2006 and now 2007.
I'm just a computer geek having run a $160M business. But I recognize amateurs are at work on this one.
P.S. It's not just Lowes. Wait for the 7-eleven and the drive thru neighborhood bank.
Thanks for the additional comments. All items mentioned should be taken into account when dealing with commercial growth plans.
But then, Lafayette has a long history of not understanding commercial development.
Lowe's has much more experience dealing with small towns than Lafayette has experience dealing with major retailers.
You are correct. Amateurs at work negotiating a deal with pros.
Can't get excited about a 7-Eleven and certainly not a non-sales tax entity like a bank.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, Lafayette has matching amateurs in Erie. Not the case in Thornton, Westminster, or Broomfield. These guys will do a good job in taking sales tax dollars from both Erie and Lafayette.
Keep in mind that the number of commentators here may be artificially limited.
Also keep in mind that the basis for much negotiation starts and depends on legislated policy. Elected leaders who truly comprehend a municipality's strengths and weakness in negotiation might take the initiative to offer legislative ideas.
It's incredibly easy to accuse "Lafayette," as some undefined collective whole, of "not understanding commercial development." It would be a lot more productive to hear what understandings ought to be integrated into the process.
Lafayette does not have a comphrehensive commercial growth plan. So the first challenge would be to have the council and city gov recognize it is needed. Also existing expertise within the city gov is elementary at best (I'm being complimentary here).
After three years of requesting it, the city did a first pass at forecasting revenue and expense. The first attempt was rudimentary at best but at least it was a start. The former finance director refused to do it.
Proposed economic development deals come before the council with no involvement or input from Finance. Since any development of any kind is filtered first by the staff, the council only sees the results of what makes it through the gauntlet. There are no guidelines today.
What we are talking about here is an element of sophistication that isn't recognized today. Witness the state of the OA/WM redevelopment situation. To push a vision without the financial resources to back it up results simply in an unimplementable vision.
Alex says: "It's incredibly easy to accuse "Lafayette," as some undefined collective whole, of "not understanding commercial development."
Lafayette, in this case, is defined as the City of Lafayette, and it's entities (such as the Planning Commission). Certainly, there have to be some within this group who do understand commercial development. But, the "collective whole" dictates policy, not the enlightened few.
Decades of commercial development, or mostly lack thereof, is sufficient evidence to make the accusation of not understanding commercial development.
In regard to providing "understandings that ought to be intergrated into the process", first and foremost would be formal expertise in City Hall on commercial development.
Small towns typically rely on some sort of Economic Development entity. Unfortunately, those teams tend to be staffed by small business owners and/or members of local Planning Commissions, or town administrator. Typically, these participants have little or no expertise in commercial growth development.
In many cases those involved are more interested in promoting the small businesses within the town. Not a bad idea, but it misses the point of "what commercial development is best for the city?"
However, whether this expertise comes from within existing entities, or is brought in from the outside - say in the form of a Finance Director who has worked in a large city with formal economic impact reviews/forecasts, in many small towns it doesn't matter.
Why? Because everyone thinks they're a commercial or retail expert just because they've served several years in the role of consumer.
So, my best guess would be that even if Lafayette, or Erie for that matter, had someone on board who was an expert on commercial development, knew what the major retailers were looking for, and knew how to negotiate with the major retailers, they'd be over-ridden, or worse, ignored.
Productive recommendation: Lafayette and Erie both need to hire commercial development experts and build formalized commercial growth plans. With growth plans in place, a proactive approach to commercial development should be implemented. Major retailers and developers could then be approaced to locate here.
The alternatives are: 1)sit back and let commercial growth happen around you like it is at I-25 and Hwy 7, and 2)let it happenn by happenstance, dictated by major retailers who come to town like snake oil salesmen.
Retailers have their own self serving agenda, which may or may not be in synch with what's good for the city. The cities should have a high level of expertise so the negotiations are on a level playing field.
Well said, Dok.
When the super W*M EDA was on the table, no one wanted to discuss what would happen to Albertsons, Walgreens, etc. The city said it would have no effect. Give me a break.
When Lowes popped up, no one wanted to talked about ACE and Lafayette Lumber.
When the EDAs come up, the discussion is always framed as "incremental" revenue. But the retailer is looking to take a hunk out of the existing businesses, i.e. cannibalize. King Soopers did it to Albertsons.
When the city bought the Old Albertsons (before my time) there was no discussion as to how the Urban Renewal District would be financially crippled when they moved. It took me 3 years to figure that out since no one wanted to talk about it.
Business 1.01 says that if you do something new, figure out what the impact is on your current situation. If you ship a new version of a product, what do you do with the current version. That's why the 2007 autos are sold at a big discount just before the 2008s hit.
Louisville budgeted as if the Boulder Home Depot would have no effect on them. Duh. Erie is looking at a Safeway on 7. What happens to their 287 store?
Isn't there going to be a Super W*M east of town in 5 years?
This is complicated stuff. It's a lot easier to keep it simple and make mistakes.
So these are good (and productive) comments from both Councilor Bensman and Doktorbombay.
These type of comments do beg the question of what would be done differently if all these recommendations were implemented. Lowe's has not asked for incentives, nor has it "overriden" the City in any other way that I am aware of. What evil(s), exactly, are we avoiding by approaching the commercial real estate cycle with extra sophistication? I hear cannibalization of existing revenues, but in the context of disallowing land uses and disallowing real estate development that is supported by the market.
No doubt there is value in strategic, long-term planning for commercial activity. My observation, however, is that bigger cities have no great secrets when it comes to economic development: (A) Big cities do give out enormous deals to commercial developers, which trend in the general market is how the millions in tax rebates for Target were rationalized when Councilor Bensman voted in favor of that. (B) These model cities have blight problems just like Lafayette; Westminster definitely comes to mind. And (C) to show any sort of positive commercial growth, any sort of long-term projection and planning, no matter what the level of expertise of the author, is going to need to account for market forces, and, in most cases, accommodate them where they are essential to the goals of the community.
I would agree that taking a long-term view of commercial development is beneficial. But the type of detailed attention - above and beyond, say, a comp plan - being discussed here is not completely antithetical to every last thing that goes on in Lafayette and Erie.
Alex,
That's all true. The challenge is that a small city has to be more precise than a big one.
Yes, I voted for the Target deal. The one approved was the third version. We actually had two executive sessions on it. The first proposal was so ludicrous one wondered how we even got to see it. And finally it was restructured to benefit the city first. But do I contend these decisions should be made based on the limited info we get? No.
The reason it is different than the W*M EDA was due some nose to nose meetings down at city hall. On W*M, the council had 3 business days and no exec sessions on the proposed EDA.
And you miss the point with Lowes. It was marketed to the public as an incremental sales tax opportunity. The impact of losing $1.2M in lease guarantees, ACE and others going out of business like the appliance store on Public Road, etc. was hard to put on the table. $150,000 spent on a one-sided message. The public deserves both pros and cons.
So the dilemna is the big box guys get all the upside and the cities have to spend a ton of money and effort to repair the damage if that every happens. Blight in this case is Public Road and So. Boulder. At least it has to be put on the table and worked through.
I don't know that Ace was going to be successful in Lafayette anyway, so voting against Lowe's could be viewed as further ensuring that there was no hardware store in town.
I agree with the comments about creating a targeted economic development plan, different than having a city council wish list brainstorming session.
Target I think is redundant after SuperWalmart. Especially because both also offer groceries. It would be much better to anchor a retail site with a Best Buy or Pier One type retailer.
Well, d-b, the city helped finance the current ACE store by guaranteeing the lease of the building for years 7,8, 9, and 10. $1.2M guarantee. ACE doesn't own the building. So if one is doing a Lowes pro forma for the city, one guesstimates future Lowes revenue and guesstimates the negative sales tax hit from ACE and the negative hit on the lease guarantee. That was never done.
As for Target versus W*M, their positioning is different and that can be modeled as well. Not done. There are also two separate developments on the site.
The retail development side of the big box guys are always looking for new sites. Unless they want to dance, there is nothing the city can do.
Ther is a W*M three miles south of Hwy 7 on I-25. Where are the folks in between going to go? Lowes is a mile closer.
There's redundancy (also known as competition) and then there's oversaturation (also known as cannibalization). There's planning and targeting economic development according to realistic trends in the market, then there's unimplementable "visions" of what we'd like to see if these functions were performed by a magic genie. In each case, how do we know which is which?
It seems that armchair critics of economic development are automatically qualified, but, on the other hand, no amount of bureaucratic expertise would ever be enough to change the way the real estate market works. When incentive deals are being worked out, we've heard some good ideas. I remain unclear what the application of the rest of this might be.
You don't know which is which until it is worked through. And one should never rely on armchair experts. Yet the city does.
What I find disappointing is the respondees here jump over the simple fact that this translates directly into city revenues which drives city services. It's about money. Repeat money. Lose $1.2M on ACE but borrow $5M on roads? Triple count sales tax from WM and KS and Albertsons?
The city can't print money. The only way it kept up was by letting the roads get messed up.
If we don't get it right, what services get cut? Library, Rec Center, PD, Fire, Ambulance, etc. The employees at the Water Treatment Plant. Who loses their job? That's the reality. So this isn't theory.
We lucked out for 3 years because the fire chief got a FEMA grant. $900,000. Without it, what would have been cut this year.
Has anyone who reads this stuff ever had to meet a payroll? Has anyone had to tell someone they are laid off because there is no money?
A last comment or two, then I'm gone on vacation, and am not taking my laptop.
In a prior career, as a VP of a major homebuilder, I had to present project plans to town councils and planning commissions. In the Denver Metro area, but not in Boulder County.
Internally, we would make fun of the amateurs on the other side of the table. And, we knew every few years the amateurs would change and we could "educate" new amateurs.
Not a pretty picture, and not something I was a part of for long. But, shows the disparity in the skillset of the negotiating parties when large companies deal with local governments.
By the way, who's paying for the intersection improvement at Hwy 7 and 119th? This intersection is horribly backed up already, the Lowe's project will only make it worse.
d-b,
Good question. After all Hwy 7 is a state highway.
You are also assuming the traffic study will say that intersection is a problem. Currently none of the traffic mitigation for the Super W*M is being done. So you have to wonder how adamant the city is going to be about a new Lowes.
Have a good vacation.
Despite the fact that Lafayette has opened two new grocery stores (King Soopers and Vitamin Cottage) the TOTAL tax revenue for grocery sales has gone up, thats right, gone UP. This means that more TOTAL groceries are being bought, regardless of which particular store they are being bought at.
Due to change of ownership some Albertsons stores in Boulder County were closed, however Lafayette's was not one of them.
I have not heard that ACE is going out of business soon, or at least soon enough for the city to incur the lease penalty. Perhaps someone can share where this inside knowledge is coming from. As a Lafayette citizen, being on council does not abrogate my right to demand competent leadership from council. A firm grasp of the obvious is not enough. I expect that leadership to be demonstrated by suggesting solutions and working with the rest of council to find compromises that will work for for the best interests of the city. "Just say No" is an anti-drug slogan, not a sign of leadership.
Post a Comment