you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you. Welcome to the special meeting of the community's redeveloped agency Monday, September 6, 22, 24, please stand. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Buddhist War. Good morning, Mr. McConnell will first set the agenda. Does anyone have any changes to the agenda? I do. Go ahead, Mr. Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did we miss the roll call? Oh, we did. Thank you very much. Yep. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Chair Christmas. Here. Vice Chair Peniman. Here. Member Barton. Here. Mayor Heitman. Here. Vice Mayor Hutchison. Here. Member Kramer. Here. Member Petronoff. Here. Thank you. And we're all present. So on setting the agenda, I would like to pull the minutes of the August 23rd meeting when I reviewed them. There are a number of items that I thought needed to be, items that needed to be clarified. And I'm going to too many to try to cover in real time here. And I'm going to sit down with the clerk's office and go over them and we'll bring the minutes back at our next CRA meeting for approval. And certainly if anybody else on the board saw items in their own review of the minutes that they think need to be changed, I encourage you to sit down with the clerk's office and give them your own input and comments. So with that, when we take a vote to set the agenda, if someone is here to make that motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to set the agenda with polling 5A and moving that to the next CRA meeting. By the second. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None in the motion carries. So this is a special meeting of the CRA to discuss a proposed reconsideration of an item that we discussed and voted on at our last meeting on August 23rd. Mr. Boudichor or Mr. McConnell, are there any preliminary comments either of you would like to make a couple of opening comments and I'm going to defer to Mr. McConnell, with procedural questions relative to the motion to reconsider. Just to kind of get us focused on the item in question, it was item 6B which was on your August 23rd CRA agenda. The item was titled presentation and discussion of a site analysis for affordable and workforce housing for city property located at 1-6 through 1.9010th street north. Now at this meeting you had pretty substantive discussion about this property, the future of this property, and ultimately the action that you all took was to direct the city attorney and I to work with CBRE, our vendor to develop a task order and effectuate a task order in an amount not to exceed $36,000 to prepare solicitation materials or an RFP to see what could possibly be done with this site in a public private type partnership. As of today, we don't have that task order finalized and effectuated as of yet. Mostly because a lot of time hasn't passed and too we knew this discussion was going to be taking place of course we put the brakes on a bit. As far as process or procedures concern you'll see in my written memorandum that Mayor Heitman properly advised me for our rules that she wished to bring this item forward for a motion to reconsider. Subsequent to that communication, I did communicate with Mr. Chrisman, Chair of the Board to advise some of the request and he agreed to call this special meeting for said motions to reconsider. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. McConnell to kind of describe next steps for you. You know, what we are going to discuss and what we can't discuss for today, and depending on what your actions are, what would come next. Thank you. Matthew McConnell for the record. So as Mr. Boudre-Schwar spoke to the mayor did meet the rules and policies by asking by requesting this and writing what's before you today is simply a reconsideration of the motion. If it passes it will be added to a regular meeting for discussion and we will reopen the matter and if it doesn't then we will not reconsider this motion moving forward and it will not be added to a regular meeting for discussion and we will reopen the matter and if it doesn't then we will not reconsider this motion moving forward and it will not be added to an agenda. So this is very limited. The consultant is not here. This is really simply should we reconsider the motion allowing Mr. Bhutishwar and myself to work on a task order and bring forth which I believe was not to exceed $36,000 to bring forth some social marketing items along with a draft RFP potentially. Thank you. So I think that's all clear. I hope it is. If there's no, please ask questions. From a process standpoint going forward here, what I would propose we do is the following. I think it would be appropriate for the mayor first to speak and offer her comments as to why she's making this proposed action, proposing this action. And then each of us, including the mayor, would have an opportunity to make comments or ask questions and then move up. So if that's satisfactory, everyone will proceed that way. And Mr. Boudersour. Yes, Mr. Chair. I think just to make sure there's extreme clarity on the motion that was approved at the last meeting, I think it would be helpful for me to read it in its totality into the record. A copy of it is in the minutes that was pulled. Right, but just. Yeah, but good point. I was, I'm clear on it and I was making an assumption but I think to both for our benefit here at the day as but also to the public. Yes. Why don't you read that motion? Thank you. And again, you'll see when I read it. There's some nuance in here that I think it's important for me to read it just so we're all aware of the nuance. So the motion was by Council or CRA Board Member Hutchison to direct city staff and CBRE to initiate a task order with the intent to retain the services of CBRE in delivering a draft market solicitation or to effectively engage prospective investors and developers and deliver a customized development plan including conceptual designs, marketing materials and other submission requirements related to city property at 160 to 190 10th Street North. This market solicitation or RFP would require approval by the CRA and include compensation to CBRE not to exceed $36,000 with direction to the city manager and city attorney to finalize the task order and related document. This motion was seconded by CRA Board Member Petrov and unanimously carried by all members present. Thank you. Mayor. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Council for the reconsideration and staff for bringing it forward. My several concerns. First of all, the task order and that scope of work, which was just mentioned, and I just want to have staff clarify that it was the larger concern of the costs, being something like $11,000 a month, and total of $900,000, which I'm not sure we even discussed that larger amount of money and where we're going with this potential property. It also is about the larger vision on this affordable housing and where we're actually going from a larger point of view, we had an excellent meeting set up with several of the partners that we have or some that are just in our affordable area. And it is really truly our only last affordable housing options. And to hear Breezone is concerning, because Breezone has many aspects of it. And rezoneing it could give others the intention that we are going to allow more density or intensity within that area. It might have to happen, but I don't feel that it was properly vetted before we could keep moving forward with this CBRE contract. I was on a board years ago for senior care out of Minnesota, and there's an art to this, so I understand going for a national search and trying to find somebody that could manage and partner with us, but it's a very small piece of property. And so I, it just seems like a lot of money for a little piece of property if we're not going to look totality at what we have and what possible options we might have. Simple as that, I just thought of any more discussion. Thank you. And so I just one point to clarify here for all of us, when you mentioned the cost and you mentioned a figure of up to $900,000. What was that in reference to? I'll let staff clarify that. Because we talked about a task order of up to 36,000 but I didn't know about a larger number. Is there... Can anybody add... I don't know a larger number. Is there can anybody ensure I don't know what the $900,000 number is. It's a retainer of $12,000 a month and you know we were anticipating possibly a year which would be about $144,000 to take us through the entire process to award of a contract. I'm not sure. Maybe it was another discussion about something else. That's the accuracy needed. Yeah, absolutely. No. Thank you for bringing that up. That's if you move forward. That's right. Pass. Yeah. Okay. Let me open it up to others. That's right. That passed. Yeah. But, okay. Let me open it up to others. Would anyone, we'll start with Member Kramer. I'm here at the American Service. I think the two are initially exclusive. We're just talking about a very small part of this and we're not going to move forward until that's been investigated. We have no commitment beyond it. And it seems like the next, we've vetted this, man. We've talked through this. The next necessary step is to do the thing that we said we wanted to do. And we aren't bound beyond it. So I don't see a reason to go backwards. Member Penamint? I remember this discussion. If I remember correctly, I had, I posed a question as to whether or not we could just put the property on the market. And the reason for my asking that was there are a lot of players, particularly in the county from out of town, that are really doing some great work relative to affordable housing. So my thought was, you know, as long as they're here and they understand the area and so forth, I don't wanna name any names particular, but I can come particularly, but I can come up with two or three that are players in here that have done great work. People trust them, they know when they come in, they're gonna finish on time, they're gonna at the price that they recommend. So, my point is, thank you Mayor. I think it does deserve a great deal more discussion as to how we go with this particular piece of property. So I thank you for bringing it forward. I do think there are some players here that could participate if that's where we wanted to go and you know who they are. Thank you. Thank you know who they are. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Member Petra. Thank you. The one I did reach out to Mr. Whitaker, who was kind of part of that HOA, and asked for a voice of the neighborhood, et cetera. And they had a meeting last week. I don't know if any of you attended. I did not attend. And they said the topic of changing zoning and intensifying and densifying properties around there, they were very much against. They felt like the magic of their neighborhood is the fact that there's a green space and there's a little more elbow room. So they he's coming back from Virginia, I think today. And just to express that concern that the neighbors pretty much were not for changing the zoning to add more units in there. So that feeds into the I think the task order that is as they look at this property and see what could be built. I think we have a decision point to be made. Do we want to allow them to come forward with proposals that densify and intensify that this parcel or not. Thank you and just one point of clarification what the consultant said to us is that it was recommending as one option was a conflant, not a zoning, not a rezoning, but it would be necessary in order to increase the density from 11 to 26 units on that parcel. So the point here, you're getting at which is the increased density is still valid, I'm just saying that it would be through in this case of conflant amendment. We'll come back to that. Let's see. Member Barton, any comments? No, this time. Okay. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I look back over the motion and this motion directed City staff and CBRE to initiate a task order with the intent to retain the services of CBRE and delivering a draft market solicitation or RFP. And that draft would have been necessary for the draft to come back before the CRA Board for full discussion. So the question here is if we don't get a draft to discuss and fully vet, then what are we going to do? So I think that we have enough safety nets for this draft when it comes back it would I believe it would be Noticed to the community the community would have an opportunity to come comment and then that would set up The CRA board to then discuss the merits and Whether or not that's going to the right direction. So that was my understanding of the process that was going to go forward. And I think if we don't want to see a draft of an RFP or a market solicitation. Then we just need to go back and have that whole discussion again. So, thank you. Go ahead and mayor. Thank you, because honestly, the while we were having the discussion, I was very concerned. In fact, I was going to vote no, but I voted yes to be in the majority so that I could bring it up for reconsideration. It just the topic is very crucial to what we have heard our community wants. And there were many factors that I wasn't sure that was going to be included in that draft. So I agree. You know, you're not going to know what you have until you go and you get this draft, but it just. It appears that we are actually looking for a partner And that's not exactly what I heard or could comprehend that everyone at this table understood that we were looking for a changing in rezoning and a changing or to find someone to help manage. So I'm not against any of, well, I'm against rezoning it. But I'm not against trying to find a partner that can help us in creating something for affordable housing, truly affordable housing with what's in that area already. Thank you. So let me make my comments. And I'm generally, my comments generally are in the same, along the same line as member cramers and vice mayor Hutchison's. We're here, that's remember, we're here not to discuss the substance of what might happen on the site, whether there would be increase in density or intensity. Over here to discuss today is whether we wanna reconsider this matter and bring it back to start from scratch at a future meeting, that discussion. My view is number one that the action we took and the motion we passed was very broad and very flexible in terms of saying we're willing to spend a little bit of money to have staff and our consultant come back with some options for us to consider as to whether we want to do an RFP, whether we want to put this property on the market for a sale or a negotiated manner with a local party or something else that we're not even thinking about. All those options on the table were making no commitments, no decisions now, but we need more information to be able to intelligently make the right decision. And then the other thing I'd like to remind ourselves of is you know, I went back and looked at the history of this and it goes back to October of last year when we first approached about the possibility of buying this property, we closed on it in January and that was the former Council. So several of you weren't here, but we had a very clear discussion at that time that we were purchasing this property with a preference for seeing if workforce housing could be developed on this site. And then in June of this year, this council received a site analysis from our consultant regarding the suitability of the site for workforce housing. And again, this council, I think, on several occasions indicated that if anything was to move forward here, it should be for the preference for work force housing. And then finally, in August, we made the approved the motion that we just heard today to take it to the next step and have the drafts prepared and brought back to us. So there has been consistency from the beginning that if it's appropriate and consistent with what the community wants and what this council wants, we'd like to see this site develop for work for housing, but we don't have information to know yet whether that will happen, that will work or not. So I'm personally comfortable with the motion that we passed in on August 23rd and I think we should I support us continuing on that path and hopefully at our November 3rd meeting we can get information that can allow us to make the next level of decision whatever that would be. So if there's no further discussion, yes, a member Kramer? Let's have one thought because I think at the slippery slope I love James Whitaker, known forever. Over and over and over, surveys show that workforce housing is a priority for our community. For how many years? It's a five-lift year. If anybody knows a way that you can do that without increasing density, raise your hand. So while we say it's a priority, find me in HOA that's going to say I want more density. It doesn't exist. So let's acknowledge the mutually exclusive. If we don't have this stomach for workforce housing, let's quit spinning our wheels wasting time and talking about it. Period. And you can't do it without replacing density. Unless you have an unlimited amount of money. Yeah. And again, I appreciate that thought, Mr. Kramer and on a personal level, I'm sympathetic to it. But again, I want to remind us we're not here to figure out what we want to do with this site today. We're here to deal with a much more specific and narrow motion around reconsideration. The question you're raising would be a question that we would inevitably have to address as part of our discussion on November 3rd when we get more information back from our staff and consultants. I just want to make that for the record. I appreciate that. The two, that doesn't coexist of no density and workforce housing. I appreciate that and I hear you. Thanks. I'll make a motion to not reconsider the RFP for CRB. Not reconsider, or to reconsider. I think we've got, I go everything out on the table. I reconsider or to reconsider. I think we've got. I got everything out on the table. I needed to get. So you're OK. So I don't think that requires a motion then. The problem was is we didn't have the definition of the scope. And then we need to have that definition of the scope. And that's what I wasn't comfortable with. I appreciate that and understand that. But if you're not going to make a motion to reconsider then I So chair Christmas may I speak on mr. McConnell? Thank you There's currently a motion to reconsider on the table, which is why we are here. Oh There already is emotion correct. I see the motion was already made Which is why we held the special me so right now there is a motion to reconsider on the table So we have to so is prop, is the proper protocol then for me to ask if there's a second? Correct, because I, I would say it could just die without a second, but the rules are clear that there needs to be a majority or a negative vote, and the only way to get to a vote is to second it. So, yes. Okay, So, the record will show that there is a motion that Mayor Heitman has already made for reconsideration. And she needs a second? I'll second. Okay. So, there's a motion to reconsider and a second by member Heitman. And we're going to vote here in a moment. Let me just finish. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. was not to reconsider. I think what Mr. McConnell is saying is by bringing this matter to Council today, you have already made that motion to reconsider. That is accurate. And I am now making a motion not to reconsider the request. I understand. But procedurally the motion is already on the table and we need to vote on it. Thank you. I didn't get that process. Yeah, no worries. And so that motion has been seconded by council by member vice-chair, Peniman. And so we have a motion and we have a second Vice Mayor Hutchison. Thank you. A question. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McConnell, if there was a failure for a second, the motion would die, would it not? That is accurate. Just consider that member Penamann. And I could. So because there's a motion that needs to be dealt with, if it failed to have a second, the motion to reconsider would be dead. Thank you. The only clarity to that and we can address these rules and policies at some point in the future because I know they were updated in August and we're going by the city council policies is it requires a majority vote or a negative vote for the motion to die right and by no second there means there is no vote it just doesn't make it to the next level civil. My understanding of this is if it requires a vote we have a second if it doesn't pass it doesn't get reconsidered again but But everything you said by Sharer is accurate. Thank you. Okay. So at the moment we have a motion and we have a second. And so in the absence of any further action, we need to vote. And to again be clear on this because it's a little bit confusing and different. A yes vote on the motion would be a vote to bring this matter back to the CRA board at a future meeting and a no vote would be to oppose the reconsideration and we move forward as we propose to move forward at our last meeting on August 23rd. Correct? Yes. Okay. Madam Clerk, would you pull the council, pull the CRA board? Member Barton. No. Mayor Heitman. No. Vice Mayor Hutchison. No. Member Kramer. No. Vice your peniment. Okay. Now I'm confused. No. I can't. Well, I don't know that I can because the motion is and has been seconded as to whether or not there is reconsideration of the motion that was made by Vice-Merry Hutchison. Is that correct? The motion on the floor, the vote not to reconsider the matter that we approved on August 23rd. Yes, vote is to reconsider a no vote is not to reconsider. It's not to reconsider. It's to allow move forward as we act it on August 23rd. Which would mean we go back to CBRE. Yeah. CB, what's in that motion would move forward and they would come back to us with what we asked them to come back with. All right, then. Actually my vote is yes. Okay. You vote yes for reconsideration. Okay. Member Petrional. No. Chair Christmas. No. So the motion fails six to one. there will be no, there will not be reconsideration and we will move forward as we propose to do and act it on in the motion on August 23rd. So thank you all very much for that and there is no other business to come before this board in this special meeting today. So we will stand adjourned and we want to take five or 10 minutes to five minutes and then we will reconvene for our city council workshop. Thank you. you you you