Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 18, 2015 <br />Page 14 of 18 <br />covenants before they purchase of the property. She felt urban renewal was an <br />appropriate tool for this property and the community is interested in filling the space. <br />Council member Leh asked Mr. Bergman about the statement in his letter, which states <br />Albertsons is prepared to institute a civil action, pursuant to Colorado Civil procedures <br />to challenge the legality of the proposed plan, should it be adopted and will vigorously <br />oppose the unconstitutional exercise of eminent domain powers to transfer properties <br />from one private owner to another at the cost of Albertsons property interests and the <br />restrictions. He asked if Albertsons position is that the mere adoption of the plan is a <br />significant legal predicate to bring forward a civil action. Mr. Bergman stated it is <br />certainly Albertsons position it is within their legal rights to challenge the adoption of the <br />plan and referred to the Cooperation Agreement where the mandatory language of <br />"shall" was used. He stated he is authorized to say Albertson's is prepared to challenge <br />the plan if it is adopted. He stated Albertsons prefers to reach a mutually beneficial <br />resolution that does not require taking Albertsons property rights and the installation of a <br />competitor immediately next door. <br />Council member Leh asked Mr. Bergman if he agreed the adoption of the plan is not the <br />exercise of eminent domain power. Mr. Bergman stated he was not prepared to <br />concede that point as it takes away Albertsons ability to file a lawsuit. <br />Council member Leh voiced his concern over the intentions and the suggestion of a <br />potential plan on the part of the City. He stated it is important to know the City Council <br />has not made any decisions and the only thing on the table is the adoption of the urban <br />renewal plan and the cooperation agreement. <br />Mr. Bergman stated Albertsons agrees and referred to Council member Stolzmann's <br />question. He explained Centennial Investments was one of the purchasers of the <br />former Sam's Club site, which closed in January or March of 2014. A letter, dated <br />January 6, 2014, from City Manager Fleming, stated "the City is exploring all options to <br />allow the purchase of the property without the use restrictions ". Mr. Bergman stated it is <br />likely the use restrictions were placed by Sam's Club for the sale of the property and <br />noted those use restrictions can be removed by the new owner for a payment. <br />Albertsons feels this is being sidestepped by the new owner. The letter also states "the <br />City staff and I are willing to recommend to the City Council, actions to alleviate these <br />factors (he felt it was a reference to other restrictive use covenants favoring neighboring <br />properties) if it would result in appropriate new tenants for the property ". He noted <br />Albertsons has concerns about what has transpired between the City and the owner of <br />the property. <br />City Attorney Light requested Mr. Bergman provide a copy of the letter to the City Clerk <br />so it could be made part of the record. <br />Council member Stolzmann asked Economic Development Director DeJong if the urban <br />renewal plan, which includes requests for proposals to purchase or buy out the use <br />31 <br />