Glenwood Springs Council rejects 50% sales‑tax rebate for former Safeway redevelopment

Glenwood Springs City Council voted unanimously March 6 to deny a developer’s request for a 50% sales‑tax rebate over 15 years to subsidize the redevelopment of the vacant Safeway building at 2001 Grand Avenue. The applicant, Robert Miller of Milco Investments, told council he had secured Harbor Freight and ARC Thrift Stores as tenants and projected $8 million in combined annual sales from the two businesses.

Why it matters: Staff said the project could generate roughly $300,000 in new annual sales‑tax revenue but acknowledged a significant portion of that could represent sales shifted from existing local businesses. Council members said they were reluctant to use a large general‑fund subsidy without a transparent policy governing substantial requests, and raised questions about the accuracy of early revenue and job projections.

What developers proposed: Miller asked for a 50% rebate to cover up to $2 million in identified project costs, saying the purchase price was $6.5 million and that the tenants would draw customers from a broad radius. He also described needed stormwater and exterior improvements, and estimated some stormwater work could cost “upwards of $200,000.”

Council concerns: Councilors repeatedly cited uncertainty about the projected return, the likelihood of cannibalization of local thrift and hardware stores, and the absence of a clear “tier 2” policy for larger incentive requests. Councilor Schachter said the ask was “too big” and emphasized the need for an equitable policy framework before granting large incentives.

Outcome and next steps: Councilor Schachter moved to deny the request; Councilor Sims seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Council directed staff to return with a workshop and proposed policy changes to make incentive criteria clearer, including considering whether stormwater fees should be eligible under the existing tier‑1 rebate structure.

Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 790; discussion and applicant presentation SEG 989–1379; motion, debate and vote SEG 1387–1692.

Speakers quoted (selected): Robert Miller, applicant: “The purchase price is $6,500,000, and I have a boatload of money we're putting into this property to improve it.” Councilor Schachter: “For a variety of factors… I think it's too big of an ask.”

Local context: Staff said a tier‑1 rebate exists for smaller projects (up to 20% for certain system improvement fees) but that the older tier‑2 program was not renewed; council asked staff to evaluate reinstating or redesigning a multi‑tier incentive policy.