Why wasn't property transferred from Rosebrook Real Estate Company aka Crestwood Swim Club to THF Realty?

Why wasn't property transferred from Rosebrook Real Estate Company aka Crestwood Swim Club to THF Realty?

2007-04-24
City Reaches Agreement With Kohl's Project Some residents oppose amendment, claiming that property was never transferred from previous owner by Eileen Duggan

The Crestwood Board of Aldermen on Tuesday held the second reading and approved a bill amending an intergovernmental cooperation agreement for Crestwood Point, the Kohl's Department Store project.

The action was taken by the old board, prior to the swearing in of new members elected April 3.
After the first reading on April 10, the Crestwood Point Transportation Development District board met to decide on the exact amount the district would reimburse the developer, THF Realty, for acquisition of land now used as part of the Crestwood Government Center parking lot.

The TDD Board voted 3-2 to deny THF's request for an additional $37,119 and settled on the final amount of $295,000. By direction of that board, the aldermen removed a clause in the amended agreement that may have left room for additional reimbursement.

Some citizens opposed the amendment on the grounds that the property was never actually transferred from the previous owner, Rosebrook Real Estate, to THF. Jerry Fredieck and Faye Clark spoke against the issue, the latter on behalf of Catherine Barrett, who was out of town.
Robert Klahr of Armstrong Teasdale, the attorney for the TDD board, acknowledged that that is technically true, but said he, the current TDD Board and City Attorney Rob Golterman had determined from the available evidence that THF had originally intended to purchase two parcels from Rosebrook and transfer one of them to the city.

The other lot, which is now the Kohl's back parking lot, was the site of Rosebrook's Crestwood Swim Club, a private facility. According to a 2001 board of aldermen memorandum, the two properties were to be transferred simultaneously at a total cost to THF for both properties of about $850,000.

As it turned out, for reasons unclear to the current TDD board, the transactions actually occurred a week apart in December 2002, Klahr said. The city paid Rosebrook $1 for the two-thirds-acre city lot. In a separate transaction, THF purchased the one-acre pool property, paying Rosebrook the full $850,000, although the double transfer never occurred, he said.
"It's not perfect," said Klahr. "Yes, there were issues that cast some doubt on the transaction. There probably would have been a better way to handle it (so it would be easier) to determine the amount of reimbursement after the fact. That was the dilemma the TDD board faced."
He characterized the final result, the $295,000, as a "compromise."

"There is a lot of documentary evidence to show the transactions were intended to be linked," Klahr said.

The consideration THF paid was meant to be an inducement for Rosebrook to sell the property, he said. "The $850,000 was meant to be consideration for both properties."

A THF representative to the TDD Board, Ian Silverman, admitted that THF was "dissatisfied" with the final price but that "we wanted to get this matter behind us. We're not standing in opposition to that number."

Mayor Roy Robinson, who is one of three city officials on the five-member TDD board, said the players in the original deal didn't follow proper procedures, and that he would have done it differently if it were happening today.

"None of us on the TDD Board has anything to do with this mess," Robinson said. "(THF is) probably entitled to more than what we approved, but that's the amount we can legally approve."

Miguel and City Administrator Frank Myers are the other city representatives on the TDD board. THF has two members.

Aldermen approved the amended agreement 6-2 with Roby and Nieder voting against.

CLARIFICATION: An April 20 South County Times article inaccurately indicated the city lot alone had originally been priced at $800,000, based on information made available at the April 10 aldermanic meeting. As explained by Klahr above, the greater number more closely represents the presumed price of both properties.