Pueblo West board hears offer for 713 East Spalding, splits over buy-or-build options

PUEBLO WEST, Colo. — The Pueblo West Metropolitan District board opened its Jan. 7 meeting to hours of public comment and director debate over where to house district offices, as a property owner offered the district a purchase price and a donation while some directors pushed to preserve money for an indoor aquatic center.

Mike Spoon, the Spradley family’s real estate agent, and Carol Spradley, who said her family owns the property at 713 East Spalding, asked the board to reopen talks about buying that building. Spoon described 713 East Spalding as roughly 16,700 square feet on about 2.7 acres and said the Spradleys were listing it at $3,500,000. Carol Spradley told the board she and her husband would be “willing to donate $525,000” toward a board project — “either to help build out, or maybe towards the aquatic center, in some form or another,” she said.

The offer prompted residents and some board members to press for a side-by-side cost comparison of three options the district has discussed: renovating 713 East Spalding (the Spradley property), purchasing 63 Spalding and adding a new small structure on the adjacent lot, and building a new administration building from scratch.

Why it matters: The board has identified an indoor aquatic center as a high priority and says the less it spends to house district administration, the more it can allocate toward that pool project. Board members who favor the lower-cost path argued buying 63 Spalding and a nearby lot would preserve capital for recreation; others said the Spradley site’s size and frontage are strategic and that the Spradleys’ donation materially changes the financial picture.

Board debate and next steps

District Manager Christian Heine told the board the district had pursued letters of intent for multiple properties. He said the LOI for lot 79 (the adjacent Spalding lot) had been executed; the LOI for 63 Spalding was still pending. Legal counsel confirmed that letters of intent are not binding and that executive-session direction previously given to negotiators did not constitute a final purchase decision.

“Letters of intent are not by themselves binding,” the district’s legal counsel said during the meeting, adding that “there were no decisions made” in executive session beyond directing negotiators.

Directors split sharply. Several directors reiterated that capturing a DOLA (Colorado Department of Local Affairs) design/construction grant — which they said requires a new-construction scope to receive full funding — and minimizing upfront administrative-building costs would free money for an aquatic center. Director Axworthy said saving capital on the administration building “gives us the most bang for the buck to build this indoor pool.” District Manager Heine reiterated that a DOLA grant “could help design and construction costs” for a new building.

Other directors and residents pushed for more due diligence on parking, utility and road improvements, ADA compliance and realistic renovation costs for 713 East Spalding, and they asked staff to get appraisals and sketch-plan input from county planning as part of due diligence.

Board action and votes at the meeting

- The board rejected a motion to re-open negotiations with the Spradley owners for 713 East Spalding. Roll-call votes on that motion were: Director Gray — nay; Director Axworthy — no; President Prowell — no; Director Mahaney — yes; Director Bickers — yes. The motion failed.

- Staff reported the LOI for 79 East Spalding had been executed; the LOI for 63 Spalding remained pending and, per counsel, would come back to the board in a purchase-and-sale agreement for any formal approval.

Quotes

Carol Spradley, property owner: “The listing price is $3,500,000 and that’s where we’d like to stay, but with the offer of $525,000 donation, either to help build out, or maybe towards the aquatic center, in some form or another.”

District Manager Christian Heine: “A DOLA grant could help design and construction costs.”

Legal counsel: “There were no decisions made and letters of intent are not by themselves binding.”

Director Vickers: “I just don’t have an easy, or settled opinion of the direction that we’re taking with 63 Spalding … I’m just not satisfied with the answers and what has been put forth to make 63 Spalding and the additional building necessary the way to go.”

What the board directed staff to do

- Continue negotiations and due diligence on the LOIs already in process (79 executed; 63 pending). Staff said it would pursue appraisals, sketch-plan reviews with county planning to confirm parking and drainage requirements, and further cost detail for renovations and road work.

- The board did not approve reopening formal negotiations on 713 East Spalding at this meeting.

Votes at a glance (other items from the same meeting)

- Trial different board meeting schedule (option 1): Approved. The board voted to trial a modified meeting cycle (keeping second and fourth Monday meeting nights but adding a Friday work/discussion session) through the upcoming election and evaluate after new members are seated.

- Resolution updating term dates for members of the county/district 6c road sales-tax oversight committee: Approved (term dates shifted to June 30 staggered years to align with annual reporting deadlines).

- RFP 2024W003 — on-call professional electrical services award (INC Power): Approved.

- Consent agenda and routine items: Approved.

What remains unresolved

- The Spradley offer is on the table in writing from the owner but the board did not direct staff to execute a purchase agreement. The LOI for 63 Spalding remains under negotiation and will return to the board for any formal purchase and sale approval. Directors asked staff to produce clearer cost comparisons for renovation versus purchase and construction, to obtain appraisals and to run sketch-plan reviews with county officials before any binding purchase agreements are finalized.

Ending note

The debate reflected a broader choice facing the district: spend more now on a larger, existing site with potential for expanded public uses, or pursue a lower-cost, phased approach that preserves capital for the long-sought indoor aquatic center. Board members urged residents to provide input via the district survey and public comment in coming meetings.