2015-06-30 HRA_Special_Meeting_Minutes

Home

HRA Special Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, June 30, 2015 Page 5 1 2 Member Wall noted the confines of current open meeting law. 3 4 Member Etten noted a meeting could be scheduled with three day posted notice; but agreed it was not 5 appropriate to discuss issues of import outside a public meeting (e.g. serial e-mail or in a social setting). 6 7 In her other life as an HRA staff member with another jurisdiction, Member Lee noted the need for the 8 HRA to grant authority for its staff to proceed without the body looking over their shoulder as long as 9 working within the parameters granted by the body. Member Lee reiterated her confusion as to why the 10 process took place and shift in administration, opining that it shouldn’t have happened. 11 12 Given the deadlocked situation on the HRA, Chair Maschka stated the City Council felt the need to step 13 in when they did and deal with the various components and issues. 14 15 Member Etten noted the conclusion was to determine what was learned from the project and process, 16 recognizing it was a very unique deal that didn’t go well. While still aware of frustrations, Member 17 Etten sought to address how best to move forward from this lesson and address them with future 18 projects. 19 20 Member Lee opined that the HRA would not have been so indecisive if all HRA members had the same 21 information available that the City Council subsequently had available to it; opining that she was 22 confident the vote would have gone differently for the HRA at that point. Member Lee opined that the 23 HRA was in the dark, not indecisive. With open meeting law restrictions, Member Lee opined there 24 had been no opportunity for individual HRA members or the public to get the information they needed 25 to make informed decisions. 26 27 Member Etten reiterated the fact that, at the time of the critical meeting(s), no one had that additional 28 information available, neither the HRA nor the City Council. 29 30 Member Lee expressed the need for and importance of having that information; and south to focus on 31 how to resolve that in the future to guarantee it was available to the body. 32 33 Member Etten concurred, opining that was something individual HRA members could help flesh out in 34 more detail for future consideration. 35 36 Ms. Raye concluded that the overall community process was good, but the information and 37 communication process for the HRA and with the City Council needed improvement. Among the 38 issues, Ms. Raye listed missed deadlines, funding challenges, timing of producing sufficient 39 information, equity issues for the developer, lack of use of the HRA Executive Committee, unique 40 utility issues, and lost opportunity to bring this unique development to fruition. Some of the learning 41 points listed by Ms. Raye included more detailed and frequent information check points, challenges 42 with co-ownership of parcels, need to add additional meetings as applicable for the full HRA, and clear 43 delineation of negotiation points and timeframes. 44 45 Being unaware if staff was privy to all necessary information during negotiations, Chair Maschka noted 46 the need to share as much of that information as possible and as applicable in open meeting format. 47 48 Ms. Raye suggested the need for documentation and process to hold the developer accountable, perhaps 49 by having an HRA member involved in the staff/developer meetings and negotiations. 50 51 Chair Maschka and Member Majerus noted that was the original intent of the HRA Executive 52 Committee. 53 54 Member Wall opined that was the HRA Chair’s role to have his fingers in everything, and then lead 55 discussions for the full board. While unaware of the intent for the executive committee, Member Wall