Council willing to keep discussing losing direct control over Center space with title transfer

County claim on title a major issue for some but not others

By Mark Reaman

There has been no shortage of discussion over whether the town of Crested Butte should transfer ownership of the Center for the Arts building to that organization’s non-profit board…and there will be more. A long discussion last week indicated some Crested Butte town council support of varying degrees for the Center’s request, but no resolution was reached so there will be another meeting later this fall to discuss the issue…again.

Center executive director Jillian Liebl and chief business officer Brett Henderson made the original request to transfer the title from the town to the Center and have met with council several times this year. They have indicated the initiative is coming from donors who are not comfortable making significant long-term gifts if the town holds title to the building. They said they have a promise from a donor to pay off the remaining $1 million in debt from the construction if the title is transferred.

Liebl said at the October 6 meeting the intention is to include deed restrictions in the new title “that lock in transparency and community benefit.” Henderson said the current arrangement is unique to other arts facilities and “ownership isn’t about changing who we are, it is about providing tools other arts centers use.”

Last June, the council asked several questions of the two and asked that a claim on the deed from the property’s original owner, Gunnison County, be resolved. The county holds a “revisionary clause” on the title stating the land must always be used for a public purpose. Since the town owns the property, it is automatically considered being used for public benefit. If that ownership changed, the county could take a different stance in the future if there were any grey areas. According to a memo from Liebl, “while the town attorney had initially suggested that Gunnison County consider relinquishing its claim to clean up the title, the County has said it does not wish to do so.”

Liebl said she spoke with commissioner chair Laura Puckett Daniels and she indicated they “did not want to relinquish their claim on the title but were willing to work with the town attorney” if another resolution was suggested.

“So, by the town owning it, it solves the county issue for using it for the public good. But if future issues arise, and it is not owned by the town, the property will revert to the county and not the town?” asked mayor Ian Billick.

“Yes. The county indicated it would want to determine public use in the future,” said town attorney Karl Hanlon. “We’re stuck with that.”

“My recollection from our summer discussion was that this would be resolved before pursuing a title transfer,” said Billick. “Is this a threshold issue? It introduces uncertainty but how much, we don’t know. I was hoping this would be resolved before this meeting.”

“It’s not a threshold issue for me,” responded councilmember Anna Fenerty.

“What is the likelihood the county would want to accept ownership of the Center?” asked councilmember Mallika Magner. “It seems the last thing they would want.”

“We can’t predict what they would do in the future,” said Hanlon. 

“Maybe we should talk to the county. It doesn’t make any sense to me,” said councilmember John O’Neal.

“I’ve talked to the county attorney, and they want to keep that restriction in place,” said Hanlon.

“I think we and the county share the idea that the property stays in public use,” said Magner.

“The risk is if things go sideways in 25 years,” said Billick, “The town loses control of the property.”

“It’s the same now under the lease,” said Fenerty.

“No, the town owns it and that maintains control,” said Hanlon.

“We own it, but they run it. It doesn’t make sense,” said O’Neal. 

“The town owning it defines it as a place of public use,” said Billick.

“Heavy deed restrictions would do the same thing,” said O’Neal.

“Having 75 years on a lease does it,” said Hanlon. “What you know now is that the county wants to get the property back if it is not put to public use.”

“In the current situation with the staff and board, everything works,” said councilmember Gabi Prochaska. “But 30 years down the road, I see the possibility of the town losing control and so for me it is almost a threshold issue.”

“Deed restrictions (requiring ownership by a non-profit) should keep it in place,” said Henderson. 

“The problem is that in a bad situation, control goes to someone else,” said Prochaska.

“Deed restrictions help but nothing is airtight ‘’ said Hanlon. “At the end of the day the county is not willing to release the title claim. Control is control. If you are comfortable giving it up, fine. And we can reduce some of the risk, but we can’t eliminate it.”

“I think we have a more serious conversation with the county commissioners,” reiterated O’Neal. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

“The issue has been out there three months. We could have been brought in, but weren’t,” said Billick.

“I feel like I could move forward if there were a way to guarantee public use no matter what,” said councilmember Beth Goldstone.

Billick concluded there were not four council votes ready to stop the discussion based on the county issue.

Councilmembers then discussed the idea of seperating the property so the town owned the land and the Center non-profit owned the building. Liebl and Henderson said they were open to that idea. They were also open to future partnerships with the town or other organizations like MetRec to develop the old Center for the Arts building.

Fenerty said she’s heard the fear that the Center would ultimately gobble up the surrounding town park land. “I haven’t heard that,” responded Liebl. “Town would have full control over the parks.”

“I just want you in a place to succeed,” said O’Neal. “I have an issue if you want to use the building to leverage debt but that can be resolved. I mean, geez, what does the county want?”

“To be clear, the county is not commenting on the transfer issue,” said Hanlon. “They just want to retain the deal they negotiated.”

Billick said he didn’t understand the logic of the Center request. “If operational control is effectively the same as it is now, then why?” he asked.

“Ownership puts them in a better finance place,” said O’Neal. “You don’t paint your house as much as a renter. You don’t wash your rental car. It’s the same thing.”

“I disagree with that metaphor,” said Billick. “It’s not the same thing at all.”

“The fear is that 30 years from now everything goes awry with the situation and with the county. That forces the Center and the town to continue the conversation,” said Fenerty. “I’m not in one box or another but it doesn’t seem like a terrible decision.”

Despite continuously saying there were no plans to take out a loan against the building, the Center had suggested that if it owned the building, any debt over $3 million would require prior town approval. They would give written notification but not seek town approval if a loan was under $3 million. That didn’t sit well with councilmembers. Both Fenerty and O’Neal said that was too much and the line should be closer to $1 million. Magner indicated she was uncomfortable with any debt the town couldn’t ultimately cover.

The council had asked for an endowment before any transfer, but no specifics were discussed, and none exists currently. The Center’s Front Row donor program does provide a steady financial stream for operations and maintenance and brings in about $300,000 annually.

Public comment at the meeting fell on both sides of the issue. Several letters supported the basic idea of title transfer. 

“I love the Center and I love the town,” said Leah Williams. “But I want the town to protect the public and that means ownership. I would like to see everyone come up with alternatives in the best interest of both parties.”

“I have always maintained the town should not sell public property. That is protected by an elected board, the council,” said Jim Starr. “I’m supportive of the Center and think they’ve done a lot of good things. I’m concerned this is a solution looking for a problem. It has been a good partnership for a long time with no conflicts. The non-profit board will change year to year and council won’t have a say in it. I urge council to not transfer title to the non-profit board.”

“If there are people who won’t support the Center if it is owned by the town, that is a real limit,” said Neil Windsor. “Perhaps the town could make another commitment to help keep the Center viable.”

“Council needs the courage for that building to be everything it can be,” said Shaun Horne. “The idea the building could fall out of public use isn’t likely. It is implausible the county could get control of the building and do some hairbrained thing.”

“The structure really doesn’t change except it opens up seven figures, so support this,” said Center board member Dave Ebner. “Ownership does make things different, like John said. Help us out.”

“It’s great we’re here talking about it,” said Paul Merck. “We can do something good together.”

“Donors are important and there are challenges with that but there ought to be a way to move forward that works for everyone,” said Heather Leonard. 

There are details to work out to make sure it feels right but I’m not scared of the future,” said Fenerty.

“I’m willing to move forward,” agreed Goldstone.

“Arts organizations and facilities struggle financially everywhere,” said Prochaska. “I really don’t like this right now, but am willing to keep having the conversation.”

Billick said he has heard a lot of negative public feedback on the idea. “But the county clause concerns me significantly,” he said. “I’m frustrated that wasn’t settled. This is a major facility at the entrance to town, so I am not comfortable giving up control. It is probably a threshold issue for me.” He again asked for more clarity on an endowment and the minimum future standards guaranteed for public use.

“We talk a lot about the need to be creative with our non-profits and our community spaces, so we are taking this seriously and need to figure out how to help them,” Billick said.

O’Neal and Fenerty will reach out to the county commissioners for their reasoning about the title clause issue and another meeting on the topic will be held later this year.