Glendale review board hears presentation on proposed TID for Arden development; appointments, meeting date approved

The Glendale Joint Review Board on an organizational meeting heard a presentation on a proposed tax increment district (TID) tied to the Arden mixed‑housing project at 2510 West Goodwill Road and approved routine organizational motions including appointing the mayor as chair and naming Lars Volk the public member.

City officials and the developer said the site needs extensive environmental remediation that the developer and its lenders expect to address using a developer‑funded, pay‑as‑you‑go TID structure lasting 27 years with a 95/5 split of incremental tax proceeds favoring the developer.

The presentation by Joey Wazowski, senior development coordinator for Newland, described the Arden as a 79‑unit development of a corridor apartment building and townhomes adjacent to Round Deer Park and the Aurora Health Center. Wazowski said the developer has completed Phase I and Phase II environmental testing and a materials management plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources. He said, “the environmental cost associated with remediation is about $7,800,000.”

City consultant Todd Case and financial advisor Frank (surname not specified) reviewed the project plan and the independent analysis used to apply the statutory “but‑for” test required of TID reviews. Case told the board it must consider whether the development would occur absent the TID, whether the TID is financially feasible and whether the public benefits justify the assistance. Frank summarized the finance review and said the board’s advisers concluded “the support would be merited,” noting that projected returns with the proposed assistance fall within ranges that would attract capital but would be materially lower or infeasible without it.

Developers and advisers gave differing figures for up‑front proceeds from monetizing the future tax stream. Wazowski said the developer anticipates about $6.3 million in upfront TIF proceeds to fund remediation, with lenders requiring interest reserves and loan fees that increase the nominal financing need to about $7.8 million. The city adviser’s discounted‑cash analysis presented a larger gross project cost and a model that converts a projected $24.5 million in future assistance (95% of the forecast increment) into roughly $9.2 million in present value, then applied loan‑to‑value and reserve deductions to show approximately $6.8 million available for upfront use. Board members asked for clarification on those mechanics and how refinancing or earlier payoff would affect terms; staff said those specifics would be negotiated in the development agreement and are not part of the project plan itself.

Board members questioned traffic, sidewalks and potential infrastructure needs. Case said the city’s bike‑and‑pedestrian plan identifies sidewalks on both sides of the road as a future improvement and that immediate traffic controls or cuts are not required by this project as proposed. The presentation and Q&A noted the development aims to produce one‑ and two‑bedroom market‑rate apartments and two‑ and three‑bedroom townhomes, targeted to a mix of younger professionals and small families.

No formal action was taken on creating the TID at this meeting. Board members were told the common council will consider the project plan on March 10, after which the joint review board will reconvene to apply the statutory tests and vote on whether to allow the TID to proceed. The board set its next meeting for Monday, March 24 at 4 p.m.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to appoint the mayor as chair: carried by voice vote (no individual roll‑call tallies provided on the record). Second recorded as Chris Morgan. (Mover not specified in the meeting record.)

- Motion to appoint Lars Volk as the public (citizen) member: carried by voice vote. (Mover recorded as Mr. Prufer; second not specified in the recorded excerpt.)

- Motion to set next meeting for Monday, March 24 at 4 p.m. at City Hall (virtual attendance allowed): carried by voice vote.

- Motion to adjourn: carried by voice vote.

Context and next steps

City staff and the developer said the next formal steps include the community development authority review, a common council hearing on the project plan and a subsequent joint review board meeting after council action to apply the three statutory tests and determine whether the TID is necessary. If the joint review board approves, the developers expect to use a lender‑backed, discounted stream of future tax increments to fund remediation and construction costs; the precise financing terms will be set in a development agreement negotiated after approvals.

Board members and staff discussed that previous developers had considered the site but did not move forward because of remediation costs. Staff emphasized that under the pay‑as‑you‑go structure proposed, the city would not borrow upfront funds and the developer (and its lender) would carry financing risk.

The meeting also included an annual report review of two existing Glendale tax increment districts (TID 7 and TID 8) and closed with an agreed follow‑up meeting on March 24.