Following Wade's comments County staff presented three options for Council to consider for how we might proceed with the project. Several members of the public spoke and the Councilors took turns with their comments. Councilor Wismer indicated that it is time for us to consider other options for the site and offered the possibility of placing a new graduate college on the site. Councilor Wheeler expressed his disapproval of the current Boyer proposal which he likened to another Mari Mac type shopping center. There was a general sense by the other Councilors that the community was promised a lifestyle center with many different kinds of businesses including entertainment and Boyer's current proposal only gives us the big box store.
When it was my turn to speak I had much to say about the three options presented by the staff and I prepared some written comments which I read at the meeting. I have included my comments below.
I have heard three options for how to proceed with this project. In my view all of these options will lead to the eventual termination of negotiations with Boyer and with that we will lose any chance of getting a new big box store in the near future. This is an unacceptable outcome for our community.
Option 1 involves talking with other developers and exploring other potential deals in the marketplace. We can’t negotiate in good faith with Boyer while at the same time talking with other developers. In order to reach a deal both the County and Boyer must be committed to each other. Option 1 would undermine that commitment, and throw away the principles and trust established over the course of more than two years of negotiations between the County and Boyer. To proceed with this option would not help make a deal, rather it would kill the deal.
Option 2 would have us set a firm deadline for Boyer to sign the deal and then would have negotiations terminated if a deal isn’t reached. I don’t agree with this option because it is too adversarial and puts unnecessary time constraints on both Boyer and the County. The sense of urgency in completing a deal with Boyer is artificial. Construction on the Trinity site can not begin until June 2010 at the earliest for several reasons. Buildings on the site are presently occupied by staff and the relocation process hasn’t begun. In addition an RFP for demolishing the buildings hasn’t been issued. The master ground lease between the County and Schools is not complete and when it is finished approval from the State Board of Finance will still be required. Surely with so much left to be done in addition to finalizing the deal with Boyer, we can continue for a least a few more months to negotiate with Boyer without a premature deadline.
Option 3 is termination of the negotiations with Boyer. This option would force the County to either develop the property itself or find another developer, both scenarios have considerable risks relative to our current position.
We have already committed 75 million dollars of public money for new facilities at the Airport Basin and demolishing the existing buildings at the Trinity site. If the County were to take on the role of developer we would have to spend another 20 million dollars or more to complete the project and there would be no guarantee that we could reach a deal with a big name retailer to anchor the site. Boyer was selected because they demonstrated that they can deliver these types of retailers, and have completed several retail projects in Utah with such retailers as Walmart, Borders and Wild Oats.
If we choose to go forward with a different developer we simply don’t know whether the County could secure a better deal or whether the new developer would be successful in securing a big box store. The economic conditions that Boyer faces, high rent costs and high construction costs, would also factor into the ability of any other developer to make a deal with the County. Is there any reason to think that we could reach a deal faster with another developer? I am not convinced. Furthermore I can not dismiss the possibility that we will enter into lengthy negotiations with another developer only to have those negotiations fail and we end up without a big box store.
There is a path forward, separate from the three options presented here tonight. This option is to have the County continue its negotiations with Boyer without deadlines and without discussions with other developers. I want to emphasize to the public that as I see it we can complete a deal with Boyer now and part of this deal could be the phased development of the site together with the use LEDA economic development funds from the County for some of the utility and road work associated with the site. I believe that the citizens want the Council to take this path, rather than have Council move away from Boyer and in so doing kill the big box store. We should not take a step backward we need to proceed forward. We should not constrain ourselves to artificial deadlines, and we shouldn’t allow others in the community to use the complexity of the situation, all the tasks that remain, and the very real economic challenges facing the developer as excuses to kill the project.
We’ve heard the excuses before such as the following examples: we could have a monopoly for groceries and medicine, all we may get is just a big box store and not the other kinds of businesses that are needed for a town lifestyle center, retail businesses are failing nationwide and it is time for us to consider using the site for other things such as a new municipal building or a new graduate college.
At present more than one potential anchor has expressed interest in the site and discussions are ongoing. There may or may not be a monopoly. Although a monopoly is undesirable, what is even more undesirable is not to have the kinds of retail goods that people want locally, and most undesirable is watching significant amounts of GRT revenue from retail flowing out of our community. Using the Trinity site for anything other than a big box store is a slap in the face to the majority who voted for Ordinance 529 and does nothing to help those families who now travel great distances to get the goods they need. We will not be successful in broadening our economy, attracting new businesses and young families to our community if we don’t create local retail options for the basic amenities. We need big name retailers in our community and we need a big box store.
Council has worked very hard for years to address the need for more retail and now we must be willing to make an additional effort to reach a deal with Boyer, rather than terminating the negotiations prematurely as all three of the options presented tonight would bring about. I support continuing our negotiations with Boyer only because I see no better way to get a big box store in the near future. I urge Council to reject the three options before it, and renew our commitment to reaching a deal with Boyer. We need to fulfill the promise made to the voters who spoke emphatically to the Council when they approved Ordinance 529 with the understanding that there would be a new retail development in Los Alamos with a big box store as its anchor. Are we as Council members going to listen to these voters or turn our backs on them? In my mind choosing any of the three options presented this evening would ignore the will of the voters and eventually kill the big box store.
This concludes the remarks that I made at tonight's meeting. There will be another Council meeting on the Trinity site project on August 13th at 7pm in Council chambers. At this time Council may decide on one of the three options presented tonight.
