Council rejects purchase of Co-op building

Miriam Ostermann
Times Associate Editor

 

Restricting stipulations placed on the purchase-and-sale agreement presented to the Town of Strathmore, left council divided and unwilling to commit to their previous $1.5 million offer, on the now abandoned former Co-op building.
Over a month ago, council agreed to spend $1.5 million to secure the property for a possible relocation of municipal offices in the future. However, when restrictive caveats regarding vendor conditions, such as preventing other grocery stores or vendors selling produce to set up shop, were attached to the agreement, council was unable to put pen to paper and sign the agreement.
“While I respect their economic acumen in moving and I appreciate the value they bring to our community, I’m really disappointed in the restrictive language that they’ve put forward and I really think that our downtown will benefit from all kinds of businesses that could go into that area,” said Councillor Denise Peterson.
“We could possibly tie the hands of future economic development in the downtown for many years to come by doing this, and I really hope that at some point in time, the Co-op considers the blow that their move has given to our downtown, all the people who need to survive there and the wellbeing of the community.”
Since the conglomerate announced intentions of moving out of the downtown area and near the highway, the building, which was left unoccupied on July 14, remains at the centre of many controversial discussions. Fences were erected last week and they now surround the 1.742-acres property. Frustrations continue to grow among some councillors, who worry about the lack of direction in securing the location and of the property turning into an eyesore.
“I find it somewhat disappointing and frustrating that we lack leadership and future insight as a council moving forward,” said Councillor Rocky Blokland.
“This is the best possible place in the Town of Strathmore to put the town office; right smack in the middle of the entire town. Two council meetings ago, we all did agree on price and payment schedule. Fencing is up. Next thing is boarding the windows and the building will sit there like a big empty box for possibly five to 10 years. What a great thing to look at in the middle of downtown.”
Councillor Pat Fule was also opposed of the motion to refuse approval of the purchase-and-sale agreement, emphasizing that the downtown is in dire need of rejuvenation, and the property would serve as an ideal location for the municipal offices. With their intentions of moving the town offices and council chambers into the building, he added the caveats shouldn’t affect their intent.
However, discussions quickly arose on the possibility of other locations, even adding on to the doctor offices being constructed in Kinsmen Park, which was heavily disputed by other council members, the quality of the building itself, and the concerns regarding the price.
According to Councillor Steve Grajczyk the state of the building, including a leaky roof, weighed heavily on his decision, as was the agreed-upon price.
“I was originally in support of this town office moving there, but since then I found out a lot of things about the building,” said Grajczyk.
“We’re paying way too much for the land. In just talking about the building and tearing it down, the building is now $1.8 million for 1.7 acres. In my real-estate experience there has never been, in the history of Strathmore, anyone who paid for that.
“There are other options for the Town of Strathmore to build, and we’re not building anything yet, because we don’t have the money. Let’s get that straight.”
Upon raising the possibility of building on Kinsmen Park, one of Grajczyk’s fellow councillors refused to entertain the idea, commenting on their action a few years ago to rezone the area and thus protect the park’s area.
However, Grajczyk argued that council is willing to sacrifice some of the space for a farmer’s market building and shed, and to focus on the area near the Strathmore Golf Course to construct more park area. Councillor Fule countered the statement, arguing that the farmer’s market building would add to the park and attract people to the area.
In the absence of Councillor Bob Sobol, council first voted in favour of an amendment to the motion presented by Councillor Grajczyk, stating that administration be allowed to continue negotiations with the Calgary Co-op.
Council then also voted in favour of refusing the approval of the purchase-and-sale agreement presented to the town, between the Town of Strathmore and the Calgary Co-op, based on restrictive covenants as to vendors conditions of sale, and that the town has not received a satisfactory report from the building envelope engineer on the stability of the building. Councillor Blokland and Councillor Fule opposed the motion.
Despite the withdrawal from the agreement, council remained optimistic that the conglomerate may re-evaluate their restrictions going forward.
“We are not the City of Calgary,” said Councillor Peterson. “This is not building a new number one Co-op and selling land 10 blocks away, where another chain-store can come in.
“This is a very small community which has suffered in this new economic reality and I think that when they have a chance to consider that, or reconsider, that they may also be open to re-entering into further negotiations.”