When Minyard closed its store at Jupiter and Arapaho, a major city gateway, it also removed its gas station on the corner. Quick Trip has approval to build a new convenience store with gas pumps at the location; however, they have not yet bought the property. Is it worth anything to the citizens to help revitalize this area?

 
After the Minyard Food Store closed at Jupiter and Arapaho, a major entrance to the city suddenly had an abandoned look. The junior anchor, a hardware store in the same shopping center closed not much later. Only small businesses were left. The challenge for the area and for the city was enormous. Minyard tried unsuccessfully month after month to attract a buyer for its store and the parcel it owned but found no interest. Circumstances for the gateway area were looking bad.
 
A ray of hope emerged finally when QuikTrip corporation took some interest in building a convenience store with gas pumps on the corner where Minyard had once had their gas station. The difficulty for Council member Rick Williams and staff was that QT would block much of the view of the vacant Minyard store. While that may sound like an aesthetic advantage, it would make finding a new user for the building even harder.
 
Every QuikTrip development in the city, and probably in most locations elsewhere, have come with significant challenges that most companies would say either "too difficult" or "too expensive." I admire the tenacity and fortitude they have exhibited time and time again taking on these challenges and persisting to completion. For a city reaching build-out and depending on future infill projects, we could use a lot more companies willing to partner with the city.
 
To meet the challenge at this location—the vacant building—QT went looking for a partner that could buy and develop the rear portion of the property. They successfully partnered with the Apple Seed Project company, who plans to build an office building that will cater to local small business owners and a state-of-the-art car wash, after introductions by our economic development group at the Chamber. To make all this happen, QT will have to demolish the vacant food store building to clear the parcel for the new development.
 
When QuikTrip applied for the necessary zoning approvals on the property, they challenged the staff's proposal that QT raise the parapet wall on their building to screen the air conditioning equipment that would be on the roof. They preferred to use a vented screening wall around the equipment that would cost significantly less and would be much more efficient for the equipment. A few council members agreed but not a majority so the proposal to extend the parapet wall higher was approved.
 
I felt the extended parapet was unnecessary because it would contrast badly with the low roof line at the rest of the center, and the perception that people would focus on the screening wall, in my experience, wouldn't be true. To the latter point, the city is using the exact same type of vented screening on its new utility building across from city hall. Council member Larry Jeffus objected because he felt that the air conditioning equipment now required under new national standards would not be able to operate efficiently if the ventilation was blocked by a solid brick parapet wall.
 
At the last Council work session (Video: Item 2a), Council member Williams described the process that had occurred with QuikTrip and also mentioned that a new hardware store with new owners was attempting to establish itself in the center. He proposed the city waive the street and water impact fees being assessed to QT, together $7,815, to reduce the financial burden to QT for the extra demolition being required. These are fees usually assessed when a property is first developed and can be used by the city only for road and water line construction. Those fees for this parcel have already been paid once and the infrastructure has long existed. Collecting the fees again will not improve the parcel or the area. The other fee he asked that we consider waiving was the landfill fee to dispose of the materials from the vacant building when demolished, approximately $25,000. Because we own our own landfill, which is in District 1, accepting the brick and other materials costs the city nothing.
 
While waiving the fees would costs taxpayers nothing, to not waive them puts at serious risk the viability of the project and whether it goes forward. QT has not closed on buying the property—that is scheduled for later this month when QT must evaluate the costs of construction and fees over long range profit projections (within the current financial environment) for this location versus developing somewhere else. To not remove some of the fee burden could send a negative message to other developers willing to go beyond the normal development requirements and costs.
 
Three council members, who usually band together on almost all issues, claimed the waivers would be too expensive for taxpayers. Several members and I countered that the property base increase and sales tax revenues would easily counter the amount of the waivers. QuikTrip has gone well beyond the extra mile agreeing to demolish the vacant building, finding a buyer and developer for the remainder of the Minyard property, and being a positive force for revitalization of the shopping center that the waivers would be worth it even if they weren't bringing millions of dollars in value to the property and a fresh look to a major Garland entrance.
 
Kim Everett, at The Garland Texan, has an excellent recap, dated Mar 5, of the meeting item and discussion. There was an earlier mention at the Dallas Morning News Garland Blog, too.
 
Those of us involved in the development decisions for Garland, almost 15 years for me, often hear how hard it is to bring projects to Garland. I know that has improved several fold from the past but we still have seen at least one other multimillion dollar project killed for no legitimate reason in the last couple years. In a city dependent on its property tax base, which is in steady decline, we cannot afford petty political pandering to stymie local development and investment. It makes no sense to claim that waiving certain fees will cost taxpayers when it will not. To not do so risks unnecessarily losing millions in investment at a critical gateway location and could also lose future investment by a corporate business that has accepted development challenges no one else has been willing to tackle.
 
What will cost taxpayers is losing the extra millions in property value and sales that will put money in the city coffers. When this item is reconsidered at the next work session, I trust reasonable minds will agree to move forward and I hope it won't be too late.