2015-02-27_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Laliberte. Ayes: Roe. Nays: Motion carried. Roll Call (Original Motion as Amended) Willmus, Etten, and McGehee. Ayes: Laliberte and Roe. Nays: In response to having a single entity involved Councilmember McGehee also noted the need to determine which option to move forward with; opining that she found the 18 unit proposal more agreeable and salable to the community. Mayor Roe noted that there remained several unanswered questions, but they all did not have to be resolved tonight, but that a decision providing clear direction to staff did need to be made tonight. Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT move forward with the City Managers recommendation. City Attorney Gaughan suggested language in the motion be stated as listed in the RCA (lines 35 36), clarifying the Citys participation only extending to conveying property to the HRA. Mr. Gaughan noted it was important that this proposed motion not indicate that GMHC was authorized to undertake any action beyond their own voluntary efforts, and that the City was under no contractual obligations with them at this time. Further discussion included timing for a joint meeting; actions of the HRA at their February 17 meeting to table action until a full contingent of board members was available. Public Comment Rich Schlueter, 794 Lovell Avenue W Mr. Schlueter opined that he, and probably the entire neighborhood, would feel affronted if the process were stopped cold at this point and not within the spirit of what was trying to be achieved, especially when he found GMHCs second option as a win-win for all parties, even though it appeared to come out of nowhere. Whatever the next steps are, Mr. Schlueter opined that the neighborhood would appreciate the opportunity to express their opinion for either option, and while he could somewhat envision what the 18 unit proposal may look like, he would prefer to see a model before a decision was made. Even though Councilmember McGehee alluded to support by the neighborhood for the 18 unit proposal, Mr. Schlueter noted that this was the first hed heard of it, and suspected that was the case with many of his neighbors as well; and while it sounded great, he would like them to have the opportunity to express their opinion on either or both proposals. Graham Atwood, 841 Lovell Avenue Mr. Matwood echoed the comments of Mr. Schlueter, noting the fair amount of cynicism expressed at the initial community meetings, with neighbors being unsure