Laserfiche WebLink
that when it was lowered to $125,000, what was really lost was $50,000 and not <br />$100,000. He said that the crucial difference is that there is a $50,000 item with Home <br />Depot and at least $500,000 with Sam's Club. He felt that there was a significant chance <br />that it could be higher than $500,000 or he did not believe Mr. Koelbel would be in <br />attendance at tonight's meeting. He expressed that he is disturbed, not with an incentive <br />program, but rather that Council has been a bit casual with what they called an <br />'investment'. He felt that if Council were really concerned about whether or not Sam's <br />Club was going to go to Broomfield, some preliminary investigation of the likelihood of <br />that occurring would have been done. He said that if Council were considering spending <br />anywhere from $500,000 to $700,000 of taxpayer money, he would think they would <br />investigate how likely the event would occur. He was also disturbed by all the confusion <br />apparently surrounding whether or not there was a cap. He said that if Council thought <br />the $500,000 figure was the one that was going to be used, then it should be used. <br />However, to say that it is simply the City's fault that this agreement wasn't done sooner is <br />saying to the taxpayers that $100,000 or $200,000 of their money is being put at risk. He <br />questioned who was being held accountable for that. He felt that for the type of money <br />being expended here, the City did not do due diligence to justify these sorts of <br />expenditures. If it was considered an investment, then he felt Council should have wanted <br />to see investigative work to determine whether or not the City was really at risk at this <br />occurring. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Wood whether there was an approved PUD on Parcel 'O' prior to Sam's <br />Club proposal to be built. <br /> <br />Wood replied, no. There was a preliminary for Wal-Mart, which was not approved. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that he remembers that when Albertson's was being built, the developer <br />of Parcel 'O' at that time submitted a PUD for Albertson's and other lots. He asked Wood <br />if this was correct. <br /> <br />Wood questioned whether he was asking for development plans on other lots, or just <br />other lots. <br /> <br />Davidson replied, for other lots. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes, that is correct. <br /> <br />Davidson asked whether landscaping was designated on the PUD. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes, on the perimeters of the site of Parcel 'O'. <br /> <br />Davidson asked if there were any agreements that dealt with architecture in the PUD or in <br />agreements with Homart. He explained that he was referring to the Master Agreement for <br />the entire Centennial Valley. <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br /> <br />