Laserfiche WebLink
RHRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Monday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 32 <br /> <br />required debt service and ongoing maintenance. Member McGehee referenced <br />a petition received in the recent past signed by 130 residents asking that the <br />city not spend money, 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 of if seeking to rezone the property so quickly. <br />Member McGehee stated she was uncomfortable in the city not doing this due <br />diligence after observing six years of due diligence not being done on projects <br />not as widely supported by the community. <br /> <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 funds. However, without the community process <br />and efforts of the city already identified, Member 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 community <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 aware 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 /> <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 />Willmus suggested the double standard may be in Member McGehee’s <br />comments rather than in that process. <br /> <br />Member Willmus 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 />neighborhood to consider impacts from density, traffic and certain uses; <br />opining that was a prudent step for the city to take at this time. <br /> <br />Member Etten stated he was very conflicted on this issue. When Ms. <br />Schroeder spoke, Member Etten noted he was reminded of her comments as <br /> <br />