Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />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 />22 <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 />46 <br />RHRA Meeting <br />1Vlinutes — Monday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 34 <br />President Roe stated he wasn't prepared to commit to any expenditure or time <br />to purchase an existing property for city use or uses with partners not identified <br />for any use at this significant of a price tag and at the potential detriment to <br />other uses of those funds. President Roe stated it didn't make sense from his <br />perspective to go that route, and opined he was more comfortable having a <br />discussion with the cominunity on what ��te�uses could be used for those �€s <br />sites going forward, whether meeting the December deadline or with an <br />extension. <br />Member McGehee stated she agreed with that timing, and understood that to <br />be a condition. Ho�vever, Metnber McGehee stated she didn't disagree that <br />this was a huge sum of money with no identified use, and only vetted to date <br />for potential park use. But Member McGehee noted e-t�the community may <br />have other ideas; and if the city would agree to facilitate such a community <br />meeting as soon as possible, and then reconsider whether to further evaluate <br />the building, she would agree with that, even though she preferred more <br />infonnation. Meinber McGehee noted the city had paid for other appraisals on <br />properties that didn't prove of any benefit to the city, she considered this <br />evaluation could be done as well. However, if no one was interested in <br />pursuing anything, Member McGehee questioned why they wanted to do <br />anything. <br />Member Laliberte clarified that her comment was that it was the city's <br />responsibility for cominunity engagement and to hear ideas for potential use, <br />and �vhat the community did or did not �vant on this site that the city didn't° <br />generally provide. Member Laliberte noted perhaps one of those uses would <br />be a community center, and questioned ho�v such a public enbagement process <br />would start and the timin� for such a process. <br />REDA Executive Director Tnidgeon advised that his sense of toni�ht's <br />discussion was for direct outreach to the neighborhood as the first step and a <br />critical component of whether the city wants to take ownership of the site; and <br />if only one use to be considered, then there was only that one conversation as <br />to whether or not the city was involved. Mr. Trudgeon noted it was important <br />to know what fonn was sought to identify what type of conversation is held <br />�vith the public. If the conversation is simply limited to future land use and the <br />city has no interest in buying the property, Mr. Trudgeon noted that was the <br />extent of the conversation. However, if the city is interested in re-using the <br />property, and whether the land and existing structure are usable, or how it <br />could be adapted, then Mr. Trudgeon noted that was a land use issue involving <br />the city versus a private developer. <br />Ms. Collins noted that, if the coinmunity conversation is about rezoning, staff <br />would consider this as one of those highly-interested properties with greater <br />notification beyond the neighborhood, as part of its pilot zoning notification <br />task force recommendation process, allowing greater opportunities for public <br />