Problematic land deal dies

Jeffrey Libby

Wednesday, April 25, 2001 | 10:16 a.m.

Public opposition may have killed the proposed sale of a city-owned lot to a private developer.

The Boulder City Council had planned Tuesday to sell the 0.997-acre parcel and grant a right-of-way to Terra Concepts Inc. The deal would have created access to the planned subdivision overlooking Lake Mead from a residential street rather than a major thoroughfare.

Critics say the sale would have dodged a 1997 amendment to the City Charter that requires any sale of city-owned property larger than an acre to go before voters. The 1-acre parcel up for sale was shaved by city staff members from a roughly 2-acre parcel.

City Attorney Dave Olsen said in a written statement that the sale complied with the ordinance, but Councilman Bill Smith said the sale circumvented the law.

The ordinance stems from a ballot initiative passed four years ago that gives voters control over how the small town's largest landholder -- City Hall -- sells its assets.

Residents arrived at Boulder City Council chambers in large numbers Tuesday night; some were forced to stand in the hallway.

But council members pulled the controversial item from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, and much of the crowd left without testifying on the issue.

The council plans to reconsider granting the right-of-way May 8 but, as of late Tuesday night, there were no plans to reschedule consideration of the land sale.

"We've dropped the land sale," Mayor Bob Ferraro said after the meeting. "It created too many problems. They (the developers) weren't willing to divide the community."

Calls to Terra Concepts Inc. for comment this morning and Friday were unsuccessful.

Councilman Bryan Nix, who had supported the deal as an effort to comply with the ordinance, said that politics, not sound policy, had killed the deal.

"I'm disappointed. I thought it would be a tremendous deal for the city. But it appears the project has been derailed by Councilman Smith's attempt to politicize this land sale," Nix said.

Nix said the city will lose $171,000 in revenue expected from the sale, and the city will be left with an undeveloped, 2-acre"eyesore" leading to the subdivision.

Smith didn't buy that scenario. He said the city will be left with 2 acres that will be worth twice as much when the road is built. And, at that point, the city could sell 2 acres, not just one, Smith said.

But beyond fiscal considerations, Smith said the proposed sale was an example of what the council would do if the 1997 amendment wasn't in place.

"The 1997 amendment was intended to give the community the ability to determine its own destiny. So, if there's a potential development, it has to be sold to the community before the land is sold," Smith said.

"The land belongs to the community. It doesn't belong to the council. That initiative never would have passed if the community had trusted the council."

Giles Andersen, a retired administrator for the Bureau of Reclamation, during an interview Friday also said that he opposed the sale.

"We worked pretty hard to get the growth-control ordinance. We don't want them (council members) to get the idea that (shaving city lots to less than an acre) will go," Andersen said. "That's not what the people want."