Former Early College of Arvada Building Returns to Market; City Facing Major Losses

Contract terminated after buyer unable to afford remodel costs; Council member warns of potential multimillion-dollar loss

The Arvada City Council learned during their October 14 premeeting that the contract for the Early College of Arvada (ECA) building located at 4905 W. 60th Ave has been terminated, with the property set to return to the market.

City Manager Don Wick opened the discussion by informing council that the potential buyer was unable to afford the interior remodel costs. "The building will be back on the market and then will go to the next buyer and see what happens," Wick said.

Council members immediately sought details about how the contract dissolution worked, with one asking whether the buyer used a special provision or a standard inspection clause to exit the deal.

Wick explained that the buyer utilized the inspection provision, noting there was "an escape clause, if you want to call it that, if the project was not feasible." He emphasized that the buyer had worked hard to make the deal succeed: "They tried a lot of different ways to try to make it work."

Earnest Money and Timeline Questions

When asked whether the buyer forfeited any earnest money, Wick confirmed the money would be returned to the buyer. A council member pressed further, asking if the buyer had reached the point of providing a formal inspection report with requested repairs or remediation.

Wick indicated they withdrew before that stage, but council wanted to know if there were actual deficiencies with the building's condition and systems, or if the issue was purely economic.

Building Condition vs. Financial Feasibility

"There weren't any issues with the building that would have caused that issue to happen, it really was their financial inability to be able to do the remodel," Wick clarified. He noted that construction costs had escalated dramatically: "From the time that they did some initial estimation, costs had significantly increased to the point where it was not affordable."

Council members then drilled down on whether hazardous materials like asbestos played a role in the increased costs. Wick explained it was "just general interior construction costs" rather than specific remediation issues.

Concerns About Financial Loss

One council member expressed serious concerns about the financial impact to the city, noting that the buyer was "under contract" for a price that, combined with necessary improvements, "doesn't work" financially for them.

"I'm not surprised the city will take a loss on that," the council member said. "It's going to be well in excess of a million dollars. It could be in excess of $2 [to] $3 million."

A portion of this loss stems from ongoing property maintenance totaling $150,000-250,000 in the span of 1 year of ownership.

What This Means for Arvada Residents

With the property returning to the market, Arvada taxpayers face continued financial obligations and community concerns surrounding the vacant facility.

Ongoing Maintenance and Operating Costs: The city must continue maintaining the property while it sits vacant, including utilities, security, grounds keeping, and building upkeep. These operational costs add to the financial burden on taxpayers while generating no revenue or community benefit.

Market Uncertainty: With construction costs continuing to rise and the building requiring significant interior work to be usable, finding a qualified buyer willing to pay a price that minimizes the city's loss may prove challenging. Each month the building sits on the market adds to the total cost to taxpayers, without any public return on the investment.

Public Safety Concerns: Neighbors surrounding the ECA building have reported frequent issues with the vacant property, including drug use and squatting on or near the premises. Residents have been forced to call authorities repeatedly to address these problems, raising quality-of-life concerns for those living nearby. 

Accountability Questions: Public concern regarding the original purchase being made without community input highlights ongoing concerns about transparency in major city expenditures throughout Arvada, and specifically District 2. Residents are left questioning how the city will avoid similar situations in future real estate decisions.

The city will now move forward with marketing the property to the next interested buyer, though the timeline for a successful sale and the ultimate financial impact to Arvada taxpayers remain uncertain.