Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />I 4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />� 7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />�11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />I22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />RHRA �Ieeting <br />NTinutes — vIonday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 32 <br />Member McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion for the simple reason, as <br />long as she had sat on this City Council, she had seen enough expenditures <br />without a particular direction or input far exceeding this outlay now before <br />them, outlays that had placed incredible burdens on the community and <br />required debt service and ongoing maintenance. Member McGehee referenced <br />a petition received in the recent past signed by 130 residents seeking that the <br />city not spend inoney, but the Council making a decision to do so anyway. <br />With neighbors now asking that the city expend �20,000 in advance of a <br />meeting to help negotiate a price or find another partner or use, Member <br />McGehee opined seemed to be a double standard, as well as causing her <br />concern about the� ethics �e�i-e-rrof if s+�g-askin� to rezone the property <br />so quickly. Member McGehee stated she was uncomfortable in the city not <br />doing this due diligence after observing six years of due diligence not being <br />done on projects not as �videly supported by the cominunity. <br />Member Laliberte admitted she was struggling with this, and while agreeing <br />that information and due diligence were important, if the city knew what it <br />intended to do with the building if it went forward, that due diligence would <br />prove a good expenditure of fiinds. However, without the community process <br />and efforts of the city already identified, Metnber Laliberte stated she didn't <br />think 60,000 square feet of building was viable even if the building was <br />cleaned up. Member Laliberte noted the only city_identified needs at this point <br />were for more city storage and space for the Historical Society. Member <br />Laliberte further stated she didn't think it was unethical to start a cominunity <br />process to find out what people did or did not want for a use on that site, <br />opining that was an important part of the City Council's job and an important <br />piece of the picture. Even though nothing has been formalized yet, Member <br />Laliberte recognized that people have been a�vare that the property has been <br />made available to the city, and could provide their feedback directly to the city <br />and/or City Council. <br />Regarding the most recent comments of Member McGehee, Member Willmus <br />clarified that the City Council had gone through a lengthy process related to <br />issuing debt service, assuming Member McGehee was referencing the parks <br />bonding and public safety initiative. Member Willmus opined that those two <br />initiatives were conducted with some of the broadest outreach efforts he could <br />recall ever occurring in the city and across every sector, involving many <br />organizations and people participating, and extremely well vetted. Member <br />Willinus suggested the double standard may be in Member McGehee's <br />comments rather than in that process. <br />Member Willinus opined this would be a limiting move on the city's part <br />going forward when it came to its capacity to become involved in other things <br />already identified. However, Member Willmus stated he was interested in <br />beginning the process to protect the health, safety and welfare of that <br />