The Hot Beat

Icon

The second-day story, with your help. Call Gazette reporter Adam Belz at (319) 398-8273 or e-mail him: adam.belz@gazcomm.com

What was behind Westdale’s ultimatum?

After the flood, the mall donated office space to Linn County for nearly six months.

Since November, the county has been paying rent, and weighing its options for the future of county buildings. On Dec. 1, the mall’s owners offered to sell the mall to the county for $18.5 million.

Then on Friday came an ultimatum for the supervisors: Buy the mall or find a new place for county offices.

Clearly frustration played into this, as Brent Oleson argues on his blog.

But there’s more to it.

The fact that the county has taken up temporary residence at the mall is the mall owner’s only bargaining chip.

They’ve been trying to sell for $18.5 million since March 2008, and reportedly have received no offers near that. While the presence of numerous government offices has breathed some life into the mall, its pre-flood retail occupancy had dwindled to around 50 percent.

Even if one were to disregard the figures presented at Friday’s meeting – where purchasing Westdale would be millions of dollars more expensive than the county’s other options (which include a potential joint facility with the city and school district) – the prospect of buying Westdale Mall is daunting to county officials. The county would fill only 10 percent of the space, leaving 90 percent of the 630,000 square feet for the county to manage/sell/develop/etc.

One theory is that the supervisors (except perhaps Oleson and Rogers) have never seriously considered buying the mall.

This has been Auditor Joel Miller’s contention since before the offer was made, and Miller exploded at Friday’s meeting over the fact that the supervisors and their staff have not been communicating with mall owners much since December.

The mall says it has “assembled a package of property information for [supervisors’] review,” but can’t send it until the county returns a confidentiality agreement that would protect the proprietary information in the packet. The county has not returned the agreement, and this bugs both Miller and Oleson.

Miller said he was “incredibly disappointed” and called the supervisors “amazing” for not communicating better with the mall’s owners.

Oleson, on his blog, argues something similar, in softer language:

“I think the statement was made in frustration at the lack of formal communication between the county and the Mall owners. There has literally been no communication between the county and the sellers regarding the Mall owners early December offer to sell.”

Mike Goldberg said he received the confidentiality agreement and passed it on to Gary Jarvis, assistant county attorney.

Jarvis said after the meeting Friday that he thought the county had gathered the information it needed. But more importantly, he didn’t want county staff to come up with a recommendation for the supervisors based on confidential information. It might have forbidden staff from explaining their recommendations in public meetings, a scenario he did not find acceptable.

Advertisements

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: