WalMart declined the only bid they received on their soon-to-be vacant property on South Boulder Road in Lafayette. This does not bode well for the hope of redevelopment on that corner.
Usually I'll have an opinion on this but I'm stumped as to where this all leads. Having a vast empty commercial box stretch (with the empty McDonalds off all things mirroring this to the south) will make Lafayette look like its rotting out from the core. A blight study can't be far off....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Dan,
Why is it some of my peer council members aren't bloggers here anymore? What have you done to scare them off?
Perhaps we could creat a buyer in a Powerpoint presentation to have W*M sell their old building to. Or print up a few million in a new Lafayette currency issue. Can one of you bloggers read a book on urban renewal, declare yourself an expert, and propose a solution. Or think up something to exempt Countryside from and put it on the November ballot.
Four years ago at this time, the owner of the Lafayette Tech Center had proposed a major restaurant and retail development. He was running for city council at the time. What folks weren't told was he was heading towards declaring bankruptcy.
As for declaring blight, the city would have to blight its own building and then face the W*M lawyers.
So now to spur the discussion, is So. Boulder Road the "core" of Lafayette? Was it ever the "core" of Lafayette? Are retail malls the "core" of a city?
I think all of us who like and respect what Dan has done here should be concerned if there has been a sharp drop-off in participation. My observation is that the last go-around on this exact issue marked the end for some previous participants.
It's an extremely tough issue. I actually had a list of notes from the last thread that I never posted, partially because it was evident that the criticism was starting to get overwhelming, and partially because I feel like it's all been said already.
As far as I'm aware, there's no need for any future blight study, since all of Countryside Village is in an urban renewal area already. Because the City of Lafayette is already heavily invested in the South Boulder Road URA, the question in its simplest form is whether to push even harder, invest even more, or cut our losses and wait for the market to do its thing.
If only there were funding to connect South Boulder Road through to Broomfield...
I'm also concerned about the drop off in participation. More diverse voices makes for interesting discussions. Sometimes difficult to accept other opinions, but it's a learning experience. Hopefully some of the "quiet" bloggers are still reading.
Perhaps the weariness stems from a heavy dose of blasting past decisions. But, a big part of making smart future decisions is learning from the past, both right and wrong.
I, for one, made a conscious decision after the last go around to limit blasting past decisions. Instead, we should be working on viable suggestions. Very easy to second guess others ideas, or past decisions. Much harder to stay positive and work on solutions.
At one time, I also agreed with Alex on the extension of S. Boulder Rd. east to Broomfield. But, I'm now wondering about the impact this would have on the traffic on S. Boulder Rd. Do we need more traffic on S. Boulder? This will pull more traffic past the retail sites, but will also increase traffic through residential areas. Not a fair trade off if I lived along S. Boulder.
287 provides ample traffic past the retail area on S. Boulder. If only that traffic had a reason to turn into the retail area. With attractive retail fronting 287 on the south side, this could work.
Then, instead of S. Boulder going due east thru the Public Rd. intersection, angle it north to flow directly into Public Rd. This protects the residential areas east of Public Rd. and perhaps drives more traffic past the retailers on Public. The park that some want on the corner of S. Boulder and S. Public could actually be an extended green space west of the city building.
I agree 100% with DB's statement, "...we should be working on viable suggestions. Very easy to second guess others ideas, or past decisions. Much harder to stay positive and work on solutions."
Time and circumstances change. I am very interested in hearing thoughts and participating in discussions on what we can do, not what should not have been done in 'hind'sight.
Two specific thoughts:
1. No one lives on South Boulder Road. Even if it were feasible to channel traffic into Public, this does nothing particularly for the economics of the Countryside Village site and it doesn't necessarily bring people onto Public (many would simply continue east or southeast on the old SBR alignment). The extension of SBR to Anthem in Broomfield provides convenient access to a population with significant discretionary income; these are people who we currently want to bypass around Lafayette on Highway 7. The extension transforms some of that congestion on Highway 7 to potential customers for a redeveloped SBR corridor. Will there be more traffic on SBR in the future? Yes, but unlike Baseline, SBR was designed with those kind of volumes in mind. Obviously many improvements would need to be made, but it is more a question of when this should happen than if.
2. If Countryside is part of a newly visioned "core" for Lafayette, maybe there should be a plan encompassing the entire core area. Plaza Lafayette has planned an outdoor feature, set in the middle of the parking lot and disconnected from SBR. The Countryside plan is apparently dependent on a park, again disconnected from SBR or Public Road. Yet a large swath of undeveloped ground and connection to the City's trail system lie to the east of Public Road. It seems to me that if we're trying to generate an image that will sell a vision for all these sites, some momentum could be gained by making the planning process more comprehensive.
Whatever you think of those two thoughts, it doesn't really answer the fundamental question of how the City should be investing its resources. Should the City push ahead to redevelop Countryside Village or not?
Ah, yes. The "let's forget about the past decisions and second guessing and be positive and focus on solutions" theme. I heard that a lot in private business when a major business cratered and those who led it wanted to forget the past.
The first thing to recognize is that those who made the past decisions which to date have failed should not be the same folks to make future decisions. And secondly is to recognize that with the current financial situation the Urban Renewal District was put in six or seven years ago, there isn't enough leverage.
A few years ago, the Coal Creek Shopping Center was going to be part of the new "core". Then the message changed to Countryside will be part of the new core. Neither has worked out to date. Four years now. At one time, old residents tell me Simpson Street was the core.
The economic retail core is now 287. That is over and done with. SBR is history for now and will serve as the 287 by-pass.
So then the question I would ask is what is the definition of "core" everyone is referring to now. Perhaps that needs defining first. One can argue that if Lafayette is to stay Lafayette, the focus needs to be on Public Road now.
This whole conversation would change if the city had $10M to spend. But the cupboard is bare fore now and at least another 5 years.
Alex,
I firmly agree with your #1. If the city had the money the extension of South Boulder would be the first thing on my list for this project. Public is getting a lot of attention, with two URA committees looking at different issues. It is obvious that the traffic pattern on Public will Change with Walmart moving. The $64k question is what will be the impact on Public based on how much business those establishments get due to traffic patterns. I have heard different opinions on this from those business owners. It seems I experienced a different business culture than other bloggers. Taking calculated risks was encouraged, failures were discussed to learn how to do it better, and the two corporate culture mantras were 'don't make the same mistake twice', and 'it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission'.
Company went from zip to a fortune 100 in 20 years. I guess the culture worked.
Managers who never pushed new initiatives and waited for someone to fail to point fingers didn't last very long. I think what council tried to do with countryside is a noble effort. Most cities affected with this problem sit with their dead boxes for a number of years before trying something. If this does not work, we will learn from it and try something else. legislating vs. pontificating.
If we had $10M to throw at the problem it wouldn't necessarily get fixed. Politicians, who believe they know something about retail just because they've played the part of consumer, would just throw that $10M at the wrong solution.
I believe it's a good thing the money isn't available. Necessitates more creativity. Economically viable creativity will come from the private sector, not government.
Not sure why Lafayette needs just one core. With the cyclic nature of retail, it's probably better to have multiple "cores". Then, as one starts to fade, the next can be ready to be the new hot spot, and so on.
Don't be too tied to making Public Road any kind of retail mecca. It simply won't happen. There is no major draw to attract retailers, and there sure as hell isn't enough parking.
Solve the parking problem, like downtown Louisville did, and they still won't come. No major draw. Nice little local restaurant area, though.
Unfortunately, as much as we'd like to believe a cute little downtown area would be a draw, it isn't. Even Pearl St. in Boulder is suffering.
Countryside unquestionably needs to be redeveloped. Most likely bulldozed first. If Lafayette can't get a major retailer in there somehow, it won't survive as a retail center. If you disagree, show me a similar sized retail center that's doing well with no major player.
You're correct, Alex, no one lives on SBR. However, the light traffic east of Public would indicate that most of the traffic in that area is going to/from residential areas.
I have to believe years ago the County, Louisville and Lafayette thought SBR should/would be a major east/west thoroughfare. Otherwise, why the nice wide 4 lanes, with turn lanes, etc. They improved SBR better than they did Arapahoe or Baseline. But, it deadends at 120th. If you don't live in Lafayette, it deadends at 287, the last major arterial if you're headed east, and before it narrows down to 2 lanes.
So, we either admit it deadends in Lafayette and use it as a feeder to the retail areas. Or, we push for extension and develop another commercial area east of town that would attract Broomfield and Erie residents. I question the feasibility due to the flood plain for anything other than just a road to Broomfield.
To extend it with just the hope that traffic will flow past potential retail sites near 287 is not worth the money to extend.
d-b,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
I worked for a company that went from zero to $12B. Key questions that were always asked was who is going to buy, how much money would the project take, and what was the bottom line like. One couldn't even get in the room to talk about it until the funding was worked out. So much for noble ventures.
There is this golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. The city doesn't have the money. The only angle the city has would be to drop the repaving bond proposal and ask voters for that money to redevelop Countryside, which would probably fail.
The city put $2.4M into the Coal Creek Shopping Center three and half years ago (look where it is today) and $1.2M in the old Albertsons building.
Businessmen have models they use to determine what to do and how to invest. Right now, Countryside doesn't fit anyone's model.
Actually, I'd propose, for the sake of argument, that maybe Lafayette should drop the street maintenance bond proposal and finance the extension of SBR instead.
The problem with bonding to address deferred maintenance is that it is the definition of spending that will put the City in a deeper financial hole. There is no question of the need for this maintenance, but I do question whether the work couldn't be done incrementally, from funds that the City must generate as revenue or reallocate from existing sources. Otherwise, when do we stop spending beyond our means? In what future generation can we retire the debt, for all you financial planners out there?
So how serious is the South Boulder Road extension? Would additional traffic on SBR drive the redevelopment of the Countryside Village site? I am skeptical of magic solutions too, but I'm not sure we've really come to a place where it is clear that the City's hands are truly tied and we can just decalre the whole redevelopment process a failure.
Yes, the private sector is important. So why don't we look for ways to include existing property owners as equity holders in the redevelopment of the entire site? The value of the Countryside Village site as a real estate asset is maximized if all properties are involved. If all properties are involved (or most key properties), the less interference internal lots will present to the highest and best use.
So if you increased the quantity and individual spending power of traffic passing by Countryside Village, with the site relatively wide open for development, would you see some capital moving into town? Without any further analysis all we can say is that the plan could work. And if it worked, the City could recoup the investment through increased tax base.
And if it worked - or even if it didn't - this would be a huge step toward relieving traffic congestion along Highway 7/ Baseline Road. Extension of South Boulder is a public works project long on the books, with many agencies that have an interest (including potential funding, e.g., Urban Drainage and Flood Control District would probably pitch in for drainage and flood control in the vicinity of, or on, the bridge structure at Coal Creek.
No naysaying there. A pipe dream? Maybe, but I don't think the data is positively, conclusively against investment in South Boulder Road.
Alex, Your suggestion may have been tongue in cheek but its worth thinking about. Connecting South Boulder Road to what major road east of Lafayette? Has anyone analyzed potential alignments to know if it is feasible? Who owns the land the road would need to go through? Are we talking eminent domain? That would affect the reception an issue like this would get from the voting public.
Still, I think, for the reasons you state, including relieving traffic on Highway 7 and the positive impact an extended South Boulder Road would have on the Countryside Village redevelopment area, this is a concept worthy of serious exploration.
To answer your first question, Alex, it's never a good idea to borrow for routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should come from regular, recurring revenue. Lafayette will never be able to retire bonds used for routine maintenance, unless they decide to stop the maintenance.
The analogy would be for a corporation to borrow long term money for next month's payroll. Not smart. And, in the private world, would be an indicator of a pending train wreck.
The SBR extension, however, has issues. I presume the route would go due east and intersect with Lowell, and continue east as 160th. I don't see this as much relief for Baseline as it pretty much goes nowhere. Sure, you can hop on the NW Parkway at Sheridan/160th, but not many people are using NWP.
Point is, there would have to be a traffic study done to see what the projected traffic volume would be to justify the expense.
Also, what a lovely entrance to Lafayette if you're driving west on this new extension into Lafayette. Ugh. That would be a hindrance to drawing shoppers, I'd think.
The question becomes, do you build a good product at Countryside/Coal Creek and then build the extension (once the money source is identified), or do you bet on the come and build the extension first, with no sure source of funding?
I raised the idea of not bonding for repaving and focusing on re-development. It was the only "out of the box idea" I could come up with. Unfortunately, the train has already left the station.
The city admin decided to put a notice in the August city update saying this bond issue would be on the ballot, paid for by future sales tax revenue for 10 years. Now the council hasn't seen the language or how the city expects to pay for it. It will be on the 8/21 agenda. I sent a nasty gram about this and the response I got was that this was the only chance the city could publicize it if it is approved. Of course, it would get plenty of other publicity, especially in an election year. So if one wonders what the attitude is by the city admin regarding the responsibility and authority of the elected council, this is an example of it.
By the way, the $6.8M would be spread out over a number of years.
Now if passed by the voters, it does not mean the council actually has to do that. That would come up after the election.
As for spending the money to extend SBR, there has been some discussion on that. But the current view is that it would take 10 years to make happen.
Plowing bonded money into Countryside would raise the city's ante in getting a development partner. So a lot of work would need to be done to figure out the feasibility of all this. Given the city's track record, it would take a lot of competent work to figure that all out. Having the authority to bond would give us more flexibility in dealing with a developer, however.
Would this council accept a major change in direction? You be the judge.
If the city is going to pay for pavement bonds out of future sales tax revenue, why not pay for the paving directly out of future sales tax revenue? Bond interest will cut into how much paving the town could do. Would the city recommend it's citizens go to the bank and borrow money to buy groceries, and then pay that loan back from future paychecks? Or, use their future paychecks to buy groceries as they need them?
Good question, d-b.
Back in 1990, the city borrowed around $9M to fund the rec center and golf course. It has been paying annually around $800,000 until 2001. (If one researches how the rec center was funded by voters back then, you would be amazed at the hocus pocus performed back then. Skilling would be proud.) So the city has been hampered by the payments.
To fund the repaving project, the proposal is to pay off the existing bond with new borrowed money at a cost of $1.1M for the next ten years. The argument is that the proposed $6M+ would create a meaningful repaving program and avoid increasing costs in the future.
My frustration is we have yet to see how the city can affort the annual payment increase of $300,000 a year. The golf course still has to pay its fair share which was suspended for a couple of years due to bad management and neglect at the time. That's been fixed now when the previous council forced the issue.
Following your suggestion, the best the city could do based on what has been said (which I don't believe right now) is $300,000 a year.
You are also correct in that the city is betting on its future revenue forecast which has been wrong for the past two years.
Committing to a major fixed expensed based on a 10 year revenue forecast does not make good sense. Especially when history shows otherwise. I told them what I would do.
Long term debt for the Rec Center and Golf Course makes sense. That's debt to invest in assets. Prudent business sense. If there's been a problem paying off the debt from revenue generated from those assets, that should be fixed. Some subsidy from other funds is necessary, or residents will wonder what the advantage is to having these assets as opposed to private operators.
If the limit of road maintenance the city can afford is $300K/year, than so be it. These maintenance costs should be paid for from current, known revenue flows, like property tax or sales tax rev, not from long term debt.
If roads get bad enough, the sell to the voters is an increase in property tax. Any voter who approves a bond to pay for routine annual expenses has been sold a quick fix at a long term cost. Makes the current council look good, and future councils look bad. Short sighted.
History doesn't need to be brought up to prove this point. Just some basic business principles.
If local politicians believe business principles don't apply to running a city, they're mistaken. Lafayette can't print money like the feds.
D-B,
It took the will of the council a couple of years ago to address the mismanagement of the golf course.
The rec center is heavily subsidized but not as badly now when the previous council forced the issue.
I agree that once the repaving bond is approved and locked in, the unintended future consequences are troubling. Will we get into cutting public safety and public works services. What about the library and the rec center.
But because many pro Lowes voters were lead to believe the new store would solve future financial obligations, how will they react to a property tax increase proposal? The anti Lowes voters would be all over this.
Just to get back to SBR for a moment, I am aware of the difficulty of finding a realistic way to fund the project any time soon.
But if Lafayette could fund it tomorrow, it should be seriously considered. The alignment would connect with 160th as a continuous arterial, and that has been built into Broomfield/Anthem plans based on confirmation through our planning department. 160th does not go to nowhere, as the build out of Anthem is moving along at a steady clip despite the slow market; then there's Standard Pacific's development on the other side of NWP (Wildgrass?), and the fact that 160th goes all the way through to Thornton (e.g., Larkridge) without so much as a light... On top of that, if you look at the volume on Baseline and Dillon today, there is just no doubt that another E-W corridor is needed.
The aesthetics are relatively easy to deal with. SBR needed to be double-laned west of La Mont Does, and I'm sure the street section would be carried through to the west, meaning that this is not just a road project, but also an aesthetic improvement for that entrance to town. And speaking of industrial entrances to town, Highway 7 into Boulder by 63rd is comparable, but I don't think that really deters anyone from driving through it to get to where they want to go.
Thanks to everyone for feedback on bonding. I thought I was going insane. Maybe approval of the bond makes sense as financial back up, like drawing a line of credit, but when it comes time to think about spending, some serious budget discipline will be necessary.
Post a Comment