Details about how to finance the redevelopment of Denver’s historic Union Station, the largest public construction project since Denver International Airport, have been kept secret from all but a few key decisionmakers.
Developers and city officials blame each other for the secrecy, but neighborhood stakeholders and other civic activists say the lack of information is troub ling.
For the past month, scrutiny of the development proposals submitted by two finalists – Union Station Partners and a team led by Continuum Partners/East West Partners – has focused on how the bidders would pay for the work required to connect the century-old train depot with the upcoming FasTracks light-rail system and other transportation options.
Only $213 million will come from tax money. The team chosen to develop the project must provide the rest – up to $300 million more – but also will earn the rights to develop 19.5 acres around the depot.
With a decision expected as early as Wednesday, critics of the process say the public should be presented with an overall picture of the proposals – including financial information.
“The decision that’s being made right now is going to impact us for 100 years,” said Jerry Glick, a member of the Union Station Advisory Committee, a 96-member citizens group that worked on the master plan.
The group has not been privy to financial information.
“Are they going to decide based on design or financial factors?” Glick asked. “If they’re going to decide based on financial factors, then that ought to be public.”
Both teams vying for the opportunity to redevelop Union Station say they would like to share their financial information. Both say they can’t because the project’s Executive Oversight Committee, the group charged with selecting a developer, has prohibited them from revealing the details.
“We have been encouraged not to provide that information to the public for discussion,” said Tom Gougeon, chief development officer for Continuum Partners. “Everybody is just operating with partial information.”
Not true, said Liz Orr, executive director of the oversight committee.
“The (financial) information they’ve provided to us has been marked ‘confidential,’ and we’re dealing with it on that basis,” she said. “It goes back to the request for proposals, where we made it very clear that if they marked something confidential, it would be kept confidential.”
About a month ago, the discussion shifted from the urban-planning and design merits of the project to how to pay for it, said Walter Isenberg, president and chief executive of Sage Hospitality Resources, a member of the Union Station Partners team.
“Our plan costs more to execute; that’s a fact,” Isenberg said. “But you get a multimodal transportation hub and a vibrant high-density urban center that has great retail, and that’s very different from their (Continuum’s) plan. Their plan is low- density with a dispersion of transportation.”
Union Station Partners, which has been working with investment-banking giant Goldman Sachs, has devised a way to close its financial gap, Isenberg said. “They (the oversight panel) need to sit down with our entire team, including our investment banker, and go through that,” he said.
To a certain extent, playing the teams against each other can only ensure a positive outcome for the public, but there comes a time when it’s unfair to the developers.
“I get why they’re negotiating with both of them because it keeps the pressure on,” said former Denver City Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt, a supporter of the East West/Continuum proposal.
Staff writer Margaret Jackson can be reached at 303-954-1473 or mjackson@denverpost.com.
