by Members of the County Trinity Advisory Committee (Rick Bohn,
We serve as an ad hoc sounding board and advisory group to County staff for matters related to the Boyer Company’s proposed development of Trinity Place
Our group was formed as the Trinity RFP Committee in August 2006 by Assistant County Administrator Anthony J. Mortillaro. Several of us were participants on the Trinity RFQ Committee that assisted, earlier in 2006, in the selection of the Boyer Company as the developer of choice. During our three years of service, two of our members have departed – former Los Alamos Public Schools Superintendent Jim Anderson and former Los Alamos Medical Center Administrator Gary Nicholds. Within our role, we have exercised a blend of perspectives that reflects extensive leadership experiences drawn from Los Alamos businesses, schools and government; County institutions; and the Laboratory. We also speak as County residents committed to improving the quality of our Los Alamos community, both for those of us who live here now and for those yet to come.
As preface to our recommendations, we remain motivated by the opportunities embodied in the Trinity Site Revitalization Project and the partnership between the Los Alamos Public Schools
We, therefore, offer the following recommendations with supporting rationales:
1. Reaffirm and sustain the originating objectives for the Trinity Site Project.
a. Assure replacement facilities for existing Site facilities owned by the Schools and the County.
b. Generate long-term revenue streams for Los Alamos Public Schools.
c. Increase retail and entertainment opportunities for residents and visitors.
d. Improve opportunities for locally-owned businesses.
e. Generate incremental revenue streams for the County in excess of any County contribution to a public/private partnership.
f. Create a canyon-rim amenity for public access and enjoyment.
g. Contribute to continued implementation of the Downtown Master Plan within the development framework.
Rationale: From the formal inception of this project more than three and a half years ago, we have been energized by the enabling potential and benefits in the unusual and perhaps unique partnership between our County and Schools. The pooling of publically-held acreage and concomitant agreements to vacate current facilities and share new facilities are providing a tract of land with sufficient size, location, attractiveness, and public-motivated ownership for major “lifestyle center” development, including a significant and much-desired retail imperative. We note that within the context of the Downtown Master Plan, the “lifestyle center” approach connotes a compact and efficient development plan, featuring mixed use, pedestrian friendliness, and integration with and complementary to the larger downtown area, all of which are to be consistent with downtown design standards. A primary motivation for such development is the generation of long-term revenue streams for the Schools and County. Formulated early on in the history of this project, the above-listed objectives remain unchanged to this point. We assert these objectives remain fully applicable and are worthy of your reaffirmation to drive the future of the Trinity Site Project.
2. Make the Site ready for construction by June 2010 with the expeditious transfer of functions, comprehensive vacating of buildings, and consequent demolition.
Rationale: A key complexity in completing negotiations with a developer (be it Boyer or another entity) is the clearing of the Site to make it construction ready. Given the significant passage of County Ordinance Airport Basin
3. Accept the reality of the current economic recession and its impacts on reaching mutually acceptable agreements and conditions with a developer. Until the Site is construction-ready, exercise patience during the economic recovery to improve developer options and better pricing.
Rationale: In our judgment, the failing of the national economy has in large part impacted the finalization of a development agreement between the County and the Boyer Company. Such impacts include ever-new conditions, progressive sacrifices in design with significant departures from the original “lifestyle center” approach, and the failure to secure commitment from an anchor store. The result has been growing frustration from the Los Alamos side (which we share) and the increasing difficulty of Boyer to balance its investment commitments and risks. Although it may seem desirable to reach and finalize an agreement as quickly as possible (with Boyer or another developer), we assert that it would be a mistake to sacrifice the collected Trinity Site objectives for near-term closure. We submit that both sides will be in a stronger position to achieve these objectives the closer we get to ready the site for development. More specifically, we believe that the economy could improve during this period, which in turn will moderate conditions and pricing, afford return in part to the original “lifestyle center” design, and increase options as to a primary anchor (i.e., “Big Box”) and secondary anchors. We, therefore, advise patience to take advantage of an improving economy before entering into a development agreement. In the event things go the other way, Los Alamos will not be significantly worse off for not having tried to move to quick closure.
4. Remain open to continued negotiations with Boyer while the Site is being made construction-ready to improve and achieve mutually beneficial agreements and terms and to re-introduce practical elements of a life-style center as portrayed in earlier designs and as consistent with the development framework of the Downtown Master Plan.
Rationale: Underlying this recommendation is our support for the assumption that an experienced and successful developer is necessary to realize the Trinity Site Project. More specifically and for reasons just discussed, we believe our seeming frustration in reaching an acceptable agreement with the Boyer Company would be no different with any other reputable developer given the current economic difficulties. In the meantime, we see no downside in continuing to negotiate with Boyer during the site clearing period provided there is mutual intent to improve and leverage the development agreement as to design, options, and pricing consistent with the Trinity Site objectives. The Boyer Company was selected for development of the Trinity Site for reasons that will remain operable with an improving economy including their demonstrated experience in creating the kind of development we seek, understanding of the nature of the property, and appreciation of the market that exists here. In addition, we suggest that adjustments be explored in the exclusive arrangement between the County and Boyer to allow the County to negotiate with other entities. Lastly, it may be necessary for the County to reassess the need to contribute towards the development of public amenities related to the Trinity Site Project to achieve qualities desired by the community.
Although these recommendations represent a group consensus reflected by the signatories below, the recommendations do not come with unanimity. One of our colleagues (GC) does not concur with Recommendations 3 and 4 and, therefore, cannot fully support the advice presented here. In the judgment of our colleague, the Boyer Company is no longer credible as the developer for the Trinity Site Project because of their repeated calls for new terms and conditions and their insistent preference for Smith’s Food and Drug Stores as the primary anchor. While these concerns are shared to varying degrees by all signatories, eight of the nine members of the group support Recommendations 3 and 4.
In closing we thank you for the opportunity to provide advice on a matter of fundamental consequence to the future of our Los Alamos community. We remain committed to the Trinity Site Project objectives and their realization. We also remain committed to assisting the County in this endeavor, collectively and individually.
0 comments:
Post a Comment