City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, August 26, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunity Center Options COM 0172

60 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.5–25

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 7:23 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends moving forward with the Opportunity Center per the MOU with King County and continuing its efforts to find a service provider (or multiple service providers) to lease the space.

1165 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ Welcome everyone. I council member

0:05 ↗ Tolamarz call the August 26th, 2025 city

0:09 ↗ council services, safety and parks

0:11 ↗ committee to order.

0:13 ↗ Uh first up we have

0:17 ↗ agenda public comment.

0:20 ↗ Uh there are multiple public comment

0:22 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting.

0:24 ↗ There's a general public comment

0:25 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:26 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:28 ↗ the presentation and council question

0:30 ↗ and answer period on tonight's agenda

0:32 ↗ item. Uh members of the public may

0:35 ↗ address council at this time in person

0:36 ↗ or virtually. Those who have signed up

0:38 ↗ in advance to make comments will be

0:40 ↗ called on first. If you are joining us

0:42 ↗ virtually and would like to make

0:43 ↗ comments, please raise your virtual

0:45 ↗ hand. If you are on the phone, press

0:47 ↗ star three. If you have joined by

0:49 ↗ computer or smartphone, look for the

0:51 ↗ hand icon. This varies by device. One

0:53 ↗ option may be to go to the participant

0:55 ↗ panel and choose the raised hand icon in

0:58 ↗ the lower right hand corner. If you're

1:00 ↗ in the room and did not sign up, I will

1:02 ↗ ask for other speakers before closing

1:03 ↗ this portion of the meeting. I will wait

1:05 ↗ a moment to see if anyone wishes to

1:07 ↗ raise their hand.

1:11 ↗ Clerk, has anyone signed up to speak or

1:13 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this

1:14 ↗ evening?

1:16 ↗ >> Yes, we do have someone uh here today

1:18 ↗ with us, John Writtenhouse. And I'm

1:20 ↗ waiting for virtual hands.

1:22 ↗ I'm sorry.

1:24 ↗ >> Sorry. I I do not see any virtual hands

1:26 ↗ at this time.

1:27 ↗ >> All right. Public comments are an

1:28 ↗ important part of the public process. We

1:30 ↗ take them seriously and factor them into

1:31 ↗ the decisions we make. During audience

1:34 ↗ comments, members of the public are

1:35 ↗ invited to address the council regarding

1:37 ↗ matters that are directly related to

1:38 ↗ city programs, projects, services, or

1:41 ↗ events. Comments related to political

1:43 ↗ campaigns are not permitted. Anyone from

1:45 ↗ the public who wishes to comment will

1:47 ↗ have the opportunity to do so. Please

1:48 ↗ direct comments to the whole council and

1:50 ↗ not individuals. While this is not a

1:52 ↗ question and answer session, we will

1:54 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed. When

1:56 ↗ recognized, unmute your microphone or

1:58 ↗ step to the lect turn. State your name,

2:00 ↗ address, and relationship to the city,

2:02 ↗ i.e. resident, property owner, business

2:04 ↗ owner. Speak clearly and pause

2:06 ↗ frequently and limit comments to 5

2:08 ↗ minutes. If you're attending virtually,

2:10 ↗ do not respond after your name or phone

2:11 ↗ number is called or if your connection

2:13 ↗ is lost unexpectedly, the meeting will

2:14 ↗ need to proceed. You're encouraged to

2:16 ↗ rejoin the meeting if if able. Written

2:19 ↗ comments can be submitted at any time to

2:21 ↗ city council at isiqua.gov.

2:26 ↗ Personal attacks, obscene language,

2:28 ↗ derogatory remarks, and disruptive

2:30 ↗ behavior such as shouting, booing,

2:33 ↗ clapping, or stomping feet will not be

2:34 ↗ permitted. If the speaker is out of

2:36 ↗ order, the presiding officer will direct

2:38 ↗ the speaker to return to his or her

2:39 ↗ seat, or for virtual attendees, may

2:42 ↗ direct staff to mute the microphone. If

2:43 ↗ the speaker does not comply, the

2:45 ↗ presiding officer may take a recess to

2:47 ↗ restore order. If a disruption to the

2:49 ↗ meeting occurs and order cannot be

2:50 ↗ restored, the presiding officer may

2:52 ↗ proceed to use one of the options

2:54 ↗ provided for in RCW42.30.050

2:57 ↗ to ensure orderly continuation of the

2:59 ↗ meeting. Again, public comments, written

3:01 ↗ and verbal, are an important aspect of

3:03 ↗ the public process. City takes comments

3:06 ↗ seriously, and we thank members of the

3:07 ↗ public for taking the time to address us

3:09 ↗ during our meetings. Clerk, will you

3:11 ↗ please identify the first person who has

3:13 ↗ signed up to speak?

3:15 ↗ >> I have John Writtenhouse.

3:27 ↗ >> Your mic.

3:38 ↗ Oh perfect.

3:41 ↗ John Writtenhouse, 260 Mount Olympus

3:43 ↗ Drive Northwest in Isiqua, and I am a

3:46 ↗ resident.

3:48 ↗ And I would like to briefly speak in

3:50 ↗ support of the administration's

3:52 ↗ recommendation to proceed with the

3:54 ↗ building of the opportunity center

3:56 ↗ without a currently identified tenant or

3:59 ↗ service provider.

4:02 ↗ My wife and I have lived in Islqua for

4:04 ↗ almost 35 years. And throughout that

4:07 ↗ time, we've seen the city as a regional

4:09 ↗ leader in providing housing and services

4:13 ↗ to all residents regardless of economic

4:16 ↗ status.

4:18 ↗ Isiqua has supported the efforts of at

4:21 ↗ work to provide employment opportunities

4:24 ↗ for the developmentally disabled.

4:27 ↗ East Side Baby Corner, now Kid Vantage,

4:30 ↗ to provide donated items for children

4:33 ↗ and families.

4:35 ↗ The efforts of Leo and Rose Finnegan

4:39 ↗ and Lifeen Enrichment Options to provide

4:41 ↗ to provide adult and family homes to the

4:44 ↗ developmentally disabled adults. The

4:47 ↗ Isiqua Food Bank, Isiqua Community

4:50 ↗ Services, providing cash assistance for

4:53 ↗ struggling households.

4:55 ↗ the YW.CA

4:57 ↗ by providing support for the

4:59 ↗ construction of the YW.CA family village

5:01 ↗ in the Highlands,

5:03 ↗ the garage, a teen cafe

5:08 ↗ that provides safe space for young

5:10 ↗ adults to thrive, the Isiqua Hot Meals

5:13 ↗ program.

5:15 ↗ I could continue, but I have a feeling

5:17 ↗ you know where I'm going with this.

5:20 ↗ Adopting the recommendation of the

5:22 ↗ administration will allow the city to

5:24 ↗ retain the flexibility to choose the

5:27 ↗ most relevant service providers for the

5:30 ↗ needs of Isiqua's residents as the

5:33 ↗ economic and political situations

5:35 ↗ stabilize enough to support the

5:37 ↗ providers activities at this site.

5:42 ↗ The current problem with filling the

5:43 ↗ opportunity cent's services space might

5:47 ↗ just be a timing issue.

5:50 ↗ The fundamental plan for the use of that

5:52 ↗ space is still sound.

5:57 ↗ I received a degree in economics in

5:59 ↗ 1980. And to get that, you couldn't

6:02 ↗ avoid taking a course in the economics

6:04 ↗ of the public sector.

6:08 ↗ One theme of that study has struck with

6:10 ↗ me ever since, and I sincerely believe

6:12 ↗ it to be true.

6:15 ↗ In a capitalist economy,

6:18 ↗ the function of government is to do

6:21 ↗ those things that the private sector is

6:24 ↗ unable or unwilling to do.

6:28 ↗ The opportunity center is a project that

6:30 ↗ could only be done with the support and

6:33 ↗ the assistance of the city of Isiqua.

6:38 ↗ Please support the adoption of the

6:40 ↗ recommendation before you to maintain

6:42 ↗ the flexibility you will need to help

6:46 ↗ Isiqua continue to be a special place

6:50 ↗ where people care. Thank you.

6:55 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Writtenhouse.

6:59 ↗ >> Is there anyone else who has indicated

7:01 ↗ desire to speak at this time?

7:03 ↗ >> No, chair, not at this time.

7:05 ↗ >> All right. Well, then we will move on at

7:08 ↗ this point. Uh, we do not have minutes.

7:13 ↗ Is that correct?

7:14 ↗ >> Yes,

7:15 ↗ >> that is correct.

7:15 ↗ >> All right. Oh, because this is a

7:16 ↗ special. Yes.

7:18 ↗ >> Yes.

7:18 ↗ >> Got it. All right. Well, then we will

7:20 ↗ move on to uh our right our one uh

7:23 ↗ scheduled agenda item COOM0172

7:26 ↗ transit oriented development opportunity

7:28 ↗ center options and I believe it is being

7:30 ↗ going to be presented by our own city

7:32 ↗ administrator Wally Bob Coats.

7:34 ↗ >> Yes. Chair Mars, members of the

7:36 ↗ committee, good evening. Um,

7:38 ↗ unfortunately, uh, our team is not with

7:40 ↗ us tonight, uh, at least in person.

7:42 ↗ Andrew Snyder, the deputy city

7:44 ↗ administrator who has taken the lead on

7:45 ↗ this topic, is unfortunately home ill.

7:48 ↗ Uh, but as you all know, Andrea, she's

7:50 ↗ on the call. So, um, she is uh, not

7:53 ↗ going to give the presentation this

7:54 ↗ evening, but we'll be available for

7:56 ↗ questions. Uh, Jeff Watling, our

7:58 ↗ director of parks, recreation, community

8:00 ↗ services, is also on the line. and I

8:02 ↗ believe he as well. Uh but he'll also be

8:04 ↗ available for questions. And Jillian

8:06 ↗ Strob, our management analyst who has

8:08 ↗ been a real key uh staffer on this is on

8:11 ↗ her honeymoon. And so we'll be back with

8:13 ↗ us next week. So uh with all that, you

8:16 ↗ get me this evening to to make the

8:18 ↗ presentation. So next slide.

8:26 ↗ Um the purpose of being here as a

8:28 ↗ followup from the July 22nd services,

8:30 ↗ safety and parks committee, uh we uh

8:32 ↗ presented an update as to where we are

8:35 ↗ with the development of the opportunity

8:36 ↗ center. Um the committee asked for some

8:39 ↗ additional information um about the

8:41 ↗ tenant issues that we raised and so this

8:43 ↗ evening we're bringing back that

8:45 ↗ information uh happy to answer

8:48 ↗ additional questions but hopefully the

8:50 ↗ committee will be making a

8:51 ↗ recommendation to the full council uh to

8:53 ↗ act on next week at your September

8:55 ↗ second meeting. Next slide.

8:58 ↗ So the direction needed is should the

9:00 ↗ city proceed with building the

9:01 ↗ opportunity center without a currently

9:03 ↗ identified tenant service provider or

9:05 ↗ should the city pull out of the

9:07 ↗ agreement with KCHA to build the

9:09 ↗ opportunity center. Next slide.

9:15 ↗ recommendation of the administration

9:17 ↗ based on the additional work that we

9:18 ↗ have done and consistent with uh this

9:20 ↗ project uh being a very important one

9:22 ↗ for the community is that uh that we

9:25 ↗ proceed with building the opportunity

9:26 ↗ center while recruiting for tenants and

9:28 ↗ service providers. Uh this is the

9:30 ↗ current direction. Uh so there is no uh

9:33 ↗ negative action required or affirmative

9:36 ↗ action if you choose to to move forward

9:39 ↗ with this recommendation. But we believe

9:41 ↗ um that it's important to move forward

9:43 ↗ and so that is our recommendation this

9:44 ↗ evening. Next slide.

9:47 ↗ Uh again, the feedback uh that we

9:49 ↗ received from the July 22nd meeting, we

9:52 ↗ uh presented several options. The

9:54 ↗ preferred alternative was in the absence

9:57 ↗ of a contracted partners to pursue a

10:00 ↗ variety of smaller service providers uh

10:02 ↗ to share. Uh the committee at that point

10:05 ↗ expressed a preference for option one

10:07 ↗ but expressed concerns over the risk of

10:08 ↗ having vacant space and wanted to

10:10 ↗ discuss further before the permit window

10:12 ↗ narrows the city decision-making

10:14 ↗ timelines and as we reported in July um

10:17 ↗ that time frame is the first part of

10:19 ↗ September. So hence the reason we are

10:20 ↗ here with a special meeting this

10:22 ↗ evening. Next slide.

10:25 ↗ Uh the timeline uh I think you're

10:27 ↗ familiar with. I don't want to go into

10:29 ↗ uh details but uh clearly the project is

10:32 ↗ moving forward uh at a pace that it has

10:34 ↗ not uh for some time and so uh with uh

10:38 ↗ this last uh decision regarding the

10:41 ↗ opportunity center uh King County

10:43 ↗ Housing Authority is prepared to move

10:44 ↗ forward um and the city would do as well

10:47 ↗ with the the issue of service providers.

10:49 ↗ Next slide.

10:52 ↗ So, uh, in kind of managing this idea of

10:55 ↗ risk, uh, uh, the city staff put

10:58 ↗ together tours of both together of the

11:00 ↗ Together Center and the Skyway Resource

11:02 ↗ Center, uh, discussions with the Sunrise

11:05 ↗ Neighborhood Center, uh, and consulted

11:07 ↗ state officials regarding uh, uh, the

11:09 ↗ funding uh, that informed our risk

11:11 ↗ analysis. Um, we looked at uh, risks for

11:16 ↗ two ways without a service provider. Um,

11:18 ↗ the two main groups, service provision

11:20 ↗ risks and financial risks. Next slide.

11:25 ↗ There's a lot of details on these slides

11:28 ↗ and if Deputy City Administrator Snyder

11:30 ↗ was here with you, she would go through

11:32 ↗ every uh specific point here. Let me

11:35 ↗ take the opportunity uh to summarize and

11:37 ↗ we can certainly double back um with

11:40 ↗ more uh details on some of these these

11:42 ↗ these pieces. uh we feel uh that we

11:45 ↗ should move forward. Uh that in talking

11:48 ↗ to our various uh regional partners who

11:51 ↗ have done similar work uh they assure us

11:53 ↗ that there are plenty of providers that

11:55 ↗ would like to have that space. Um they

11:58 ↗ have the ability to pay um not large

12:02 ↗ amounts of money but enough money that

12:04 ↗ we think that will uh allow us to move

12:07 ↗ forward and make this operationally make

12:09 ↗ sense. um the the financial risk of

12:12 ↗ pulling out. Um certainly there's the

12:14 ↗ money that has already been granted to

12:15 ↗ us by the state of Washington which

12:17 ↗ would be at risk. Um we we feel that we

12:20 ↗ need to continue to move forward there.

12:22 ↗ Um next slide.

12:26 ↗ Uh we've looked at the ability to use

12:28 ↗ the affordable housing tax funds which

12:30 ↗ was another risk that was discussed and

12:32 ↗ we feel uh comfortable that uh we can

12:35 ↗ use those funds if for some reason at

12:37 ↗ some later point uh that built out space

12:40 ↗ is used for other purposes. We believe

12:42 ↗ that there are sufficient means for us

12:44 ↗ to uh uh generally uh address the use of

12:47 ↗ that money. Uh and then the ability to

12:49 ↗ use the state funds as I've indicated uh

12:52 ↗ uh we really need to move forward now to

12:54 ↗ make sure that those monies are in hand.

12:56 ↗ Next slide.

12:59 ↗ Uh the service risks um again we're not

13:03 ↗ sure what that mix would be and the work

13:04 ↗ that we've done since meeting with you

13:06 ↗ on July 22nd. Uh it's very clear uh that

13:10 ↗ the need exists. It's very clear that

13:12 ↗ there are partners out there uh that

13:15 ↗ would be able to fill the space. uh but

13:18 ↗ at this point we do not have the uh

13:20 ↗ ability to contract with those partners

13:23 ↗ so early on. Um uh I think what we've

13:25 ↗ heard from the partners is that if the

13:27 ↗ space is available then they're willing

13:29 ↗ to talk. Uh this idea of contracting for

13:32 ↗ space that has not yet been constructed

13:34 ↗ is just very difficult. I mean all of

13:36 ↗ these agencies are facing tremendous

13:38 ↗ tremendous financial challenges but

13:41 ↗ services are still required. There are

13:43 ↗ still funding streams coming to these

13:44 ↗ organizations, but if there was a model

13:47 ↗ several years ago where they could

13:49 ↗ commit uh to space prior to

13:51 ↗ construction, that time has gone away.

13:52 ↗ So, we feel comfortable that should the

13:54 ↗ city council decide to move forward, uh

13:57 ↗ there would be organizations that would

13:59 ↗ want to do that. In addition, we have

14:01 ↗ worked with our uh uh human services

14:03 ↗ division with the city uh and they also

14:05 ↗ believe that we could provide services

14:07 ↗ there ourselves. um that might make

14:09 ↗ sense. But certainly looking for

14:11 ↗ partners that are already established,

14:13 ↗ that have that infrastructure, that have

14:15 ↗ those connections in the larger

14:17 ↗ community is will remain our first

14:19 ↗ priority. And uh as we move forward with

14:21 ↗ this, we'll continue to work to identify

14:24 ↗ those individuals. I think we've covered

14:27 ↗ most of those points. Next slide.

14:30 ↗ Again, reiterating the lessons learned

14:32 ↗ over the last month from our our peers.

14:35 ↗ uh creative and flexibility is required.

14:38 ↗ Uh as I've talked about uh below market

14:40 ↗ rental rates will be needed. Larger

14:42 ↗ tenants can subsidize smaller ones. And

14:45 ↗ again I think what we saw with all of

14:46 ↗ these is is a mix. Certainly the

14:48 ↗ opportunity center is a great example of

14:51 ↗ a whole variety of different sizes and

14:53 ↗ shapes of organizations. And I think

14:55 ↗ that while our space is not nearly as

14:57 ↗ much as the opportunity center is, uh we

14:59 ↗ still feel confident that uh if the pro

15:02 ↗ project is built out uh that we will

15:04 ↗ find uh find tenants there. Next slide.

15:09 ↗ Again, next steps. Um

15:12 ↗ this is the time to make the decision.

15:13 ↗ And if the council is uncomfortable with

15:15 ↗ the information that we've provided, uh

15:17 ↗ now is the time uh to direct the

15:19 ↗ administration to uh extract ourselves

15:22 ↗ from that space and have additional

15:24 ↗ discussions with KCHA on the use of that

15:26 ↗ space. Again, we feel comfortable at

15:28 ↗ this point moving forward. We have

15:30 ↗ available resources uh to front for the

15:33 ↗ uh the buildout and we will continue to

15:36 ↗ work diligently over the next uh year or

15:38 ↗ two uh to identify uh service providers

15:41 ↗ so that once that uh uh space is

15:44 ↗ available that it will be occupied and

15:45 ↗ will serve residents.

15:49 ↗ I believe that's the last slide

15:50 ↗ direction needed. Um, again asking for

15:54 ↗ confirmation of the current direction,

15:56 ↗ which is to proceed with building the

15:58 ↗ opportunity center without a currently

16:00 ↗ identified tenant or service provider.

16:01 ↗ If the committee uh whatever the

16:04 ↗ committee's decision this evening, we

16:05 ↗ ask that we bring it to the September

16:07 ↗ 2nd council meeting for confirmation. Uh

16:10 ↗ that will then allow us to move forward

16:12 ↗ with the larger project. I'm happy to

16:14 ↗ answer any questions. the deputy city

16:15 ↗ administrator Schneider as well as uh

16:18 ↗ director Watling are also online and

16:20 ↗ happy to answer what I am unable to.

16:24 ↗ >> Deputy Council President DM Michelle.

16:26 ↗ >> Uh thanks. Um,

16:29 ↗ so one of the hang-ups I imagine when

16:31 ↗ we're talking to potential uh renters is

16:34 ↗ uh that we don't have uh uh what the

16:38 ↗ rental rates would be, what the square

16:39 ↗ footage is that's available, u all of

16:42 ↗ those facts that people need to in order

16:44 ↗ to make a business decision. So where in

16:47 ↗ the timeline do we think we'll be able

16:49 ↗ to come up with that information for

16:50 ↗ potential renters?

16:53 ↗ >> Uh deputy city administrator has turned

16:55 ↗ her camera on. Uh, good evening, Andrea.

16:57 ↗ I'll let you take that one.

17:01 ↗ >> Uh, thank you, Lally. Uh, good evening,

17:04 ↗ council. Um, we are looking to issue an

17:09 ↗ RFP for potential tenants in October.

17:13 ↗ Um, between now and then, we'll be

17:15 ↗ working with KCHA, King County Housing

17:17 ↗ Authority, on um, some kind of ballpark

17:22 ↗ terms uh, that can help us generate

17:24 ↗ interest. And then throughout the winter

17:27 ↗ into spring, we anticipate working with

17:29 ↗ KCHA on a condominium agreement and a

17:33 ↗ purchase and sale agreement that we will

17:35 ↗ be able to use to help understand where

17:37 ↗ ongoing maintenance costs are of the

17:40 ↗ building and then um simultaneously

17:44 ↗ work with our tenants on a lease uh

17:48 ↗ contract with them. So, that work uh we

17:51 ↗ anticipate really starting uh in the

17:53 ↗ next few weeks, but then getting more

17:55 ↗ and more details uh through the spring

17:57 ↗ as we'll work on a condominium agreement

18:00 ↗ and our um leases.

18:05 ↗ >> Thank you, Andrea.

18:08 ↗ Turn off your camera and relax.

18:12 ↗ Sorry you're not feeling well.

18:15 ↗ Council member Ray. Um,

18:18 ↗ >> thank you. Uh, Council Member Marts, can

18:21 ↗ you refresh me on the size of the

18:24 ↗ opportunity center and what we estimate

18:26 ↗ the cost to be when all said and done?

18:31 ↗ >> Andrea, I'll let you grab that one as

18:33 ↗ well.

18:34 ↗ >> Sorry about that, Andrea.

18:37 ↗ >> Thank you for the question. Uh, the size

18:40 ↗ is 10,000 square feet. So, compared to

18:43 ↗ the other um centers that we looked at,

18:46 ↗ the Together Center is somewhere like

18:48 ↗ 55,000 square feet. Uh the Skyway

18:51 ↗ Resource Center is like 5,000 and the

18:54 ↗ Sunrise is like 6,000. So, we're really

18:58 ↗ in between some of the examples that we

19:00 ↗ looked at and I think that's an

19:02 ↗ advantage um for the for the opportunity

19:04 ↗ center as we seek tenants. Um the uh

19:10 ↗ other question you asked, how much do we

19:12 ↗ think it's going to cost? Final numbers

19:13 ↗ are not in yet from KCHA. Our current

19:16 ↗ estimate um just for acquisition,

19:20 ↗ not for um all the tenant improvements,

19:24 ↗ just for acquisition we think is going

19:26 ↗ to be $6 to 7 million

19:29 ↗ and then um tenant improvements over

19:31 ↗ that. We do believe we have sufficient

19:34 ↗ funds set aside uh when we take into

19:37 ↗ account the affordable housing sales tax

19:40 ↗ revenues we've been collecting as well

19:42 ↗ as

19:44 ↗ the state grant uh to provide for

19:47 ↗ acquisition and tenant improvements.

19:51 ↗ >> Awesome. Thank you so much.

19:55 ↗ >> City administrators, can you go back to

19:57 ↗ the slide that's titled July 22nd SSP

20:00 ↗ feedback?

20:20 ↗ Um, the page 17 of the packet July 22nd

20:26 ↗ SSP feedback.

20:33 ↗ I don't know which slide it is in the

20:35 ↗ presentation.

20:39 ↗ There we go. So my question for city

20:41 ↗ administrator is what's the effective

20:43 ↗ difference between options one and

20:44 ↗ option three?

20:53 ↗ Well, I think at uh July 22nd we were

20:57 ↗ hopeful that maybe we would have some

20:59 ↗ idea of providers identified in the in

21:01 ↗ the month that has just passed. And so

21:04 ↗ we do not. And so part of being here

21:06 ↗ this evening is to let you know that we

21:08 ↗ do not. So, uh, really option one

21:13 ↗ in some respects comes out off the

21:15 ↗ table. I think we've just kept it since

21:17 ↗ it was option one, the one to focus on,

21:19 ↗ but I think they're they're the same

21:21 ↗ thing at this point as we sit here at

21:23 ↗ the end of August.

21:24 ↗ >> But, but really most accurately, the

21:26 ↗ option that you are recommending is

21:27 ↗ option three.

21:29 ↗ >> Yes. And Andrea,

21:30 ↗ >> if I may, um, Council Member Moritz, as

21:34 ↗ you may recall, at the July 22nd

21:37 ↗ committee meeting, we presented these

21:39 ↗ options and said the current plan is to

21:42 ↗ get one tenant. And that was the idea

21:45 ↗ um, with the Together Center is that we

21:48 ↗ would have Health Point and Valley

21:50 ↗ Cities working in partnership to be our

21:53 ↗ single tenant providing services. Um,

21:57 ↗ we're still pursuing that model. if we

21:59 ↗ can find a single tenant, that's kind of

22:01 ↗ our first um option. Um given that

22:05 ↗ that's our first option, July 22nd was a

22:08 ↗ conversation where we were exploring

22:11 ↗ what other options or a plan B should we

22:14 ↗ examine? And part of that plan B is if

22:16 ↗ we can't find one tenant,

22:19 ↗ are um are we willing to look at um a

22:23 ↗ couple of smaller tenants together that

22:26 ↗ may have more rotating services that may

22:28 ↗ require more staff management of the

22:32 ↗ center.

22:34 ↗ And so that was the difference between

22:36 ↗ um our our preferred path which is um

22:41 ↗ similar to the original vision versus a

22:44 ↗ couple of other tenants. Option number

22:46 ↗ three that you see on this slide is if

22:50 ↗ council wanted to proceed with that one

22:52 ↗ tenant. if council was not um

22:56 ↗ comfortable with the administration

22:57 ↗ perhaps providing more management of the

23:00 ↗ of the center that would be required

23:02 ↗ with multiple tenants. And so

23:05 ↗ um so that's the difference between one

23:07 ↗ and three is that maybe we we build it

23:10 ↗ and we wait for that one tenant instead

23:12 ↗ of trying to have multiple tenants and

23:15 ↗ maybe rotating services that are a

23:17 ↗ little bit more um city resource

23:20 ↗ intensive to manage. Thank you for that

23:22 ↗ clarification because I would have never

23:24 ↗ ever gotten that from just looking at

23:26 ↗ the slide. So, thank you. Um, so there's

23:30 ↗ really probably is there also then a sub

23:32 ↗ question in there are on are we like do

23:36 ↗ we want to proceed with not having an

23:38 ↗ identified service provider and are we

23:40 ↗ also hung up on having a single anchor

23:44 ↗ provider is you know council chair Mars

23:49 ↗ members of the committee if the

23:50 ↗ committee feels strongly about that sure

23:52 ↗ I think the message you're hearing from

23:54 ↗ us this evening is that we're going to

23:55 ↗ continue to work diligently to come up

23:57 ↗ with the best plan possible and it may

24:00 ↗ have various flavors, various pieces to

24:02 ↗ that. Uh but we would like the

24:04 ↗ flexibility to continue to do that. If

24:06 ↗ you feel from a from a programmatic

24:08 ↗ standpoint that one main tenant is the

24:12 ↗ only way to go, then certainly would

24:13 ↗ that be useful to know. But I think what

24:15 ↗ we've learned over the last several

24:17 ↗ months is that that's probably not very

24:19 ↗ practical right now, even if that's the

24:21 ↗ ideal because they just don't exist. And

24:23 ↗ so what we would like to commit to do is

24:26 ↗ find the best solution. And if we do

24:28 ↗ find that one that can manage this and

24:30 ↗ the city's in essence a pure landlord,

24:33 ↗ then great. If the city has to provide

24:35 ↗ some coordinative services to make this

24:37 ↗ all happen, then that's fine, too. But

24:39 ↗ there will be some small additional

24:40 ↗ expense to that. We don't know, but we

24:43 ↗ need to decide are we going to do this

24:44 ↗ or not. Uh and again the recommendation

24:47 ↗ of the administration this evening is

24:48 ↗ let's do it and we'll figure it out the

24:50 ↗ best way to provide the services once

24:52 ↗ the space is constructed.

24:53 ↗ >> Okay. But I'm also hearing that uh it

24:56 ↗ would be nice that you're also

24:58 ↗ recommending that uh we we be clear

25:01 ↗ about being flexible on how you fill

25:04 ↗ that space.

25:05 ↗ >> Certainly. or or or I guess almost in my

25:07 ↗ mind it's are you unflexible because

25:10 ↗ we're going to default to flexible but

25:12 ↗ if you feel programmatically that it's

25:15 ↗ really important then that clarity is

25:17 ↗ would be helpful this evening

25:19 ↗ >> right thank you

25:22 ↗ >> do we have any other uh council member

25:24 ↗ Ray

25:25 ↗ >> thanks um you um kind of triggered a

25:28 ↗ thought which is do we have a preferred

25:32 ↗ um type of service provider we would

25:35 ↗ like to attract. And the reason I ask is

25:37 ↗ when we first um went down this road um

25:40 ↗ eight years ago, um we were looking at a

25:43 ↗ health care provider and that was a more

25:46 ↗ expensive option than just general um uh

25:51 ↗ office space or for other service

25:53 ↗ providers. And so I'm kind of curious,

25:57 ↗ are are we still is that still the

25:59 ↗ desired outcome? And is that um

26:03 ↗ reasonable? Um and and because I want to

26:06 ↗ my my underlying question here is do we

26:09 ↗ need to incur the expense to build out

26:11 ↗ the infrastructure to support uh medical

26:14 ↗ offices which is significantly higher

26:15 ↗ than other um

26:19 ↗ commercial real estate which is what

26:21 ↗ this is. Um do we need to do that? And

26:25 ↗ if so okay and if not um and that's okay

26:29 ↗ too. I'm just kind of curious what your

26:31 ↗ thinking is in terms of where we're

26:33 ↗ going because that was the original

26:34 ↗ plan.

26:36 ↗ >> If if I may, city administrator Bob

26:38 ↗ Kitz,

26:39 ↗ um the funding that we have for this

26:42 ↗ space has specific uses attached to that

26:45 ↗ funding and the majority of the funding

26:48 ↗ really requires behavioral health

26:50 ↗ service providers.

26:53 ↗ We can also, as originally planned for

26:56 ↗ this space, provide um lowcost medical

27:00 ↗ services, including uh dental services

27:03 ↗ as was originally planned. So, we're

27:06 ↗ still seeking providers to provide

27:08 ↗ certainly behavioral health services um

27:11 ↗ as well as uh sliding scale or

27:14 ↗ affordable medical or dental services.

27:18 ↗ And the commitments we're asking at this

27:20 ↗ point of the council uh do not include

27:22 ↗ the ultimate tenant improvements. And so

27:25 ↗ uh you know as Andrew has indicated the

27:27 ↗ medical u services would be light

27:31 ↗ intensity. We're not talking about

27:33 ↗ anything that would require extensive

27:34 ↗ plumbing or extensive electrical. Um so

27:37 ↗ if it turns out again if we find a

27:39 ↗ dental provider let's say uh the normal

27:42 ↗ tenant improvements that would then come

27:43 ↗ later could certainly accommodate that.

27:49 ↗ Yes, I I agree. And I'm kind of going

27:51 ↗ the opposite direction, which is you

27:54 ↗ have to build a more robust

27:56 ↗ infrastructure to support those um

27:58 ↗ downstream tenant improvements. And

28:01 ↗ those are that is a more robust

28:03 ↗ infrastructure that is not required for

28:06 ↗ things like mental health counseling.

28:08 ↗ And I'm trying to figure a way to maybe

28:10 ↗ to reduce the cost because right now

28:12 ↗ quite honestly you we're coming in at

28:14 ↗ $1,000 a foot which is really expensive

28:17 ↗ just really expensive um if you look at

28:19 ↗ kind of what it costs to build real

28:21 ↗ estate. So I'm trying to understand why

28:23 ↗ it's so high

28:27 ↗ and I think that's a different kind of

28:29 ↗ question. And so Andrea, why don't you

28:32 ↗ take a stab at at that just to if we're

28:36 ↗ just doing the simple arithmetic of

28:39 ↗ square foot divided by by estimated

28:41 ↗ cost, why we get to where we get.

28:45 ↗ >> Yeah. the the 6 to7 million estimate um

28:50 ↗ that we have from KCHA includes the

28:53 ↗ parking as well um and kind of basic

28:57 ↗ construction costs

29:00 ↗ and our share of um the overall building

29:04 ↗ envelope.

29:06 ↗ So, it's um we we can follow up with

29:11 ↗ KCHA

29:13 ↗ and get a more detailed cost estimate.

29:17 ↗ Um but that's the ballpark estimate that

29:19 ↗ we have right now.

29:22 ↗ >> Okay. I'm I'm you know I don't want to

29:24 ↗ beat a dead horse and I'll I guess I'll

29:26 ↗ we're in questions so I'll stop eating

29:28 ↗ the horse

29:29 ↗ >> and and Mr. Chair, Council Member Ray,

29:31 ↗ we're happy to take some additional

29:32 ↗ questions. um we we don't have the full

29:36 ↗ complement of of staff with us 100%

29:38 ↗ tonight. So, uh if there's some

29:40 ↗ additional questions we can bring back

29:42 ↗ to the full council. So, Andrea, I think

29:44 ↗ we'll just go ahead and take that as an

29:46 ↗ additional question and with the

29:48 ↗ materials we provide the full council,

29:49 ↗ we'll have a more complete answer.

29:51 ↗ >> That'd be awesome. Thank you.

29:53 ↗ >> Other questions.

29:57 ↗ All right. Hearing none, we are at the

29:59 ↗ second opportunity for public comment.

30:02 ↗ So I will ask again if any members of

30:04 ↗ the public that are either with us this

30:06 ↗ evening or uh watching from home wish to

30:08 ↗ comment at this time. Now would be a

30:10 ↗ good time to raise your hand your

30:12 ↗ virtual hand uh or your literal hand uh

30:15 ↗ and let us know.

30:20 ↗ Are we seeing any uh indication that

30:22 ↗ anyone uh participating remotely or

30:25 ↗ locally would like to uh use the second

30:27 ↗ opportunity to speak to us?

30:33 ↗ No, not at this time.

30:34 ↗ >> All right. Well, then we will move Oh.

30:36 ↗ >> Oh, sorry. We We do have a member spoke

30:38 ↗ too soon.

30:39 ↗ >> Yes.

30:39 ↗ >> Okay.

30:39 ↗ >> Yes, please.

30:45 ↗ Uh I'm just wondering listening to this

30:47 ↗ discussion comparing it to what I think

30:50 ↗ I know about the together center model

30:53 ↗ that uh maybe a majority of the costs of

30:58 ↗ the uh the development for health point

31:02 ↗ was actually paid by health point.

31:06 ↗ Yeah. So that's probably something that

31:08 ↗ needs to be taken into account that uh

31:12 ↗ at least in the together center model

31:15 ↗ extra buildout in order to support the

31:19 ↗ tenants's core function was paid for by

31:23 ↗ the tenant. And I'm I'm sure that there

31:25 ↗ was some sort of background

31:28 ↗ um

31:30 ↗ uh combination of different funds that

31:32 ↗ the tenant received in order to do that

31:35 ↗ buildout because for Healthpoint, yes,

31:37 ↗ it was very very expensive. But if I

31:40 ↗ remember correctly, I don't believe the

31:41 ↗ together center itself

31:45 ↗ contributed to that buildout.

31:47 ↗ Okay. Thank you.

31:50 ↗ >> Thank you for your comment.

31:53 ↗ deliberation.

31:58 ↗ >> You you you're volunteering.

32:00 ↗ >> I'd love to go first. Um I was I was

32:03 ↗ just going to write some little talking

32:05 ↗ points, but I think I'll just I'll just

32:06 ↗ ramble instead. Um I'm in no way opposed

32:10 ↗ to um providing space for um human

32:13 ↗ services providers in in Esqua. I think

32:16 ↗ it's a great idea. I guess what my pause

32:19 ↗ is is can we provide more for the same

32:23 ↗ money. Um, and that's why I'm kind of

32:26 ↗ drilling into the cost per square foot.

32:28 ↗ Is there a more cost-effective way than

32:32 ↗ than this particular option? And I know

32:34 ↗ we've been been pursuing this for a long

32:37 ↗ time, but the cost of it has also

32:39 ↗ escalated dramatically

32:41 ↗ um in that time. I mean, if you look at

32:43 ↗ just the benchmark construction cost for

32:47 ↗ even a healthc care facility is

32:49 ↗ something like $450 to $500 a square

32:51 ↗ foot. And it and that's with probably

32:54 ↗ with TI's, I don't know, tenant

32:56 ↗ improvements. Um, but we're also talking

33:00 ↗ about 700 plus 7

33:05 ↗ $700 per square foot plus um in this

33:08 ↗ current thing. So, I guess what I'm

33:10 ↗ really looking for is uh great, we need

33:12 ↗ it. The need is clear. We should move

33:14 ↗ forward. We should find a tenant. All of

33:17 ↗ those things are absolutely. I just

33:19 ↗ don't know that this is our best, you

33:21 ↗ know, best option. It's an option. I

33:23 ↗ just don't know what's the best option

33:24 ↗ for us. And so, that's what I'm that's

33:26 ↗ the question I'm trying to to wrestle

33:27 ↗ with right now is what's the best way to

33:30 ↗ meet this need in the community and

33:32 ↗ provide the most um CA capacity at the

33:35 ↗ most reasonable price.

33:39 ↗ Thank you, Deputy Council President D.

33:41 ↗ Michelle.

33:43 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. Well, bear with

33:45 ↗ me. I've got quite a few notes here. So,

33:48 ↗ uh I favor the administration's, uh

33:51 ↗ recommendation, uh for maintaining the

33:53 ↗ city's commitment to the opportunity

33:55 ↗ center, um and pursuing, uh as best we

33:59 ↗ can in the coming months, uh finding a

34:02 ↗ tenant for that for that, um uh

34:06 ↗ location. But uh if that is not

34:09 ↗ possible, I really liked the uh the

34:13 ↗ suggestion that we could also move the

34:15 ↗ human services division into that space

34:17 ↗ as an interim solution. Um I thought

34:20 ↗ that was an excellent idea.

34:24 ↗ Uh we want to go back to the original

34:26 ↗ idea which was we're going to provide

34:29 ↗ affordable housing for low-income

34:31 ↗ residents and that's going to be coupled

34:34 ↗ with very much like the together center

34:37 ↗ model that's going to be coupled with uh

34:39 ↗ human services provision located onsite.

34:44 ↗ So when we talk about other

34:46 ↗ alternatives, uh we have to be thinking

34:48 ↗ about well where would be the other

34:50 ↗ alternative and how would that how would

34:52 ↗ that benefit the people who are in this

34:55 ↗ proposed uh low-income housing. Um so

34:59 ↗ basically the idea was it has to be on

35:01 ↗ site. It has to be in this location. It

35:04 ↗ has to be something accessible here also

35:07 ↗ accessible to the transit because it is

35:09 ↗ a transit oriented development. uh also

35:13 ↗ transit serving low-income people, many

35:15 ↗ low-income people. So, this location is

35:18 ↗ absolutely perfect for what we're

35:20 ↗ proposing. And our long-term vision on

35:23 ↗ this has been that uh that would be the

35:26 ↗ model. Uh we would provide uh something

35:31 ↗ in the realm of 250 affordable housing

35:35 ↗ units and I believe it's five units for

35:38 ↗ developmentally disabled folks. And then

35:41 ↗ uh we would have places very accessible

35:46 ↗ for them to access the health care and

35:48 ↗ the support the behavioral health

35:50 ↗ support that they need. Um I'm going to

35:54 ↗ go back again. That was the original

35:56 ↗ vision that we were talking about 8

35:57 ↗ years ago. Um, at that time, uh, I had

36:02 ↗ just I think I believe I was still a

36:05 ↗ member of the Together Senate board and

36:07 ↗ I was in conversation with Health Point

36:10 ↗ Health Point at that point and asked

36:12 ↗ them and I think I used the statistics

36:14 ↗ the night that this was approved, how

36:17 ↗ many of their residents or how many of

36:19 ↗ their patients were coming from the

36:21 ↗ Isiqua area and they estimated about 25%

36:25 ↗ of their patients of their overall

36:27 ↗ patient load was coming from Isiqua and

36:29 ↗ adjacent

36:31 ↗ uh communities to the south and the east

36:33 ↗ of us. So that's a large number of

36:36 ↗ people who have to drive 15 to 20 miles

36:38 ↗ to access

36:40 ↗ uh health care that's being uh

36:43 ↗ supplemented through Medicaid uh which

36:46 ↗ is an essential need for low-income

36:49 ↗ people. It still is. Nothing has changed

36:51 ↗ in the last 8 to nine years. There has

36:54 ↗ been no health uh providers added in the

36:57 ↗ area in the last 8 to nine years. So

37:00 ↗ this location again is just perfectly

37:03 ↗ positioned to take that market of people

37:06 ↗ who need those particular services and

37:09 ↗ provide them here in Isiqua which is a

37:12 ↗ really key place. We're crossroads. It's

37:14 ↗ exactly the right place that we should

37:16 ↗ be locating it. In terms of the risk, um

37:19 ↗ I did do an informal survey with many of

37:22 ↗ our service providers and I did talk to

37:25 ↗ people um leading those agencies who

37:28 ↗ said yes, they are indeed looking for

37:30 ↗ space uh in the coming months. It was

37:33 ↗ the reminder to me that even in the

37:35 ↗ worst of times and we are in really

37:36 ↗ volatile times for uh nonprofits and uh

37:40 ↗ health and human services providers.

37:43 ↗ Even in the worst of times, people are

37:45 ↗ looking to expand. Why? Because this is

37:48 ↗ also the time when people really need

37:51 ↗ health and human services. And so, um, I

37:55 ↗ I believe that we will be able to find

37:58 ↗ people to fill that spot. But if we

38:00 ↗ don't, uh, I love the idea of the human

38:03 ↗ services division being moved into that

38:05 ↗ space, even if it's temporarily.

38:07 ↗ Um, right now they are in a very small

38:10 ↗ house right over here. um they've turned

38:13 ↗ it into a very nice, very cozy place,

38:16 ↗ but it is small and they are cheek to

38:19 ↗ jow in there. And so uh if indeed we

38:23 ↗ were not able to find someone

38:24 ↗ immediately, I think that moving the

38:27 ↗ human services division into the uh

38:30 ↗ opportunity center would be absolutely a

38:32 ↗ brilliant idea. They're already

38:34 ↗ providing uh human services to uh

38:37 ↗ low-income people. Um they're perfectly

38:40 ↗ positioned. Again, we have our homeless

38:42 ↗ specialist outreach people there. Uh,

38:44 ↗ again, a great place for them to be

38:46 ↗ would be close to that transit center.

38:48 ↗ So, we have some really viable options

38:51 ↗ here, uh, for that location. And so I

38:56 ↗ think that looking at the research that

38:59 ↗ was done uh which I really thank our

39:01 ↗ staff for doing uh I am very much

39:05 ↗ supporting are going ahead with the

39:07 ↗ opportunity center with the hope that we

39:10 ↗ will find a major tenant but if we do

39:13 ↗ not find a major tenant immediately that

39:16 ↗ we have alternate plans that I think are

39:18 ↗ also very viable. Thank you.

39:22 ↗ >> Thank you. Um,

39:25 ↗ so, uh, I want to thank Council Member

39:28 ↗ Ray as always for having a careful eye

39:32 ↗ on following the money and understanding

39:35 ↗ the implications, the final financial

39:37 ↗ implications of things. I'm going to

39:39 ↗ miss him uh, on council when he is uh,

39:43 ↗ no longer here next year.

39:45 ↗ Uh, I can say confidently that we have

39:51 ↗ turned over every rock, have looked

39:54 ↗ behind every nook and cranny in this

39:57 ↗ city to find uh good options for these

40:03 ↗ sorts of human services. In the early

40:06 ↗ years, this this issue was percolating

40:09 ↗ right at the surface, the year that I uh

40:12 ↗ was first uh want a seat on council,

40:15 ↗ 2009. And we thought it was going to be

40:18 ↗ easier than it turned out to be. And we

40:20 ↗ looked at option after option after

40:23 ↗ option. I could go through the town with

40:27 ↗ a map and paint it red with the ink of

40:30 ↗ all the places that we looked at that

40:32 ↗ turned out not to work. um for a human

40:35 ↗ services campus and some of them just

40:37 ↗ broke our heart because um we got to a

40:40 ↗ point where we're like oh this will work

40:42 ↗ um and then it didn't. So um and I have

40:46 ↗ seen nothing in the eight years that we

40:47 ↗ have been talking about this facility

40:49 ↗ that makes me think that uh the market

40:52 ↗ has changed in any way that would allow

40:55 ↗ us to consider a different location for

40:57 ↗ this. Um I don't know about the $700 an

41:00 ↗ hour or $700 per square foot. um uh you

41:06 ↗ know if if we can get some supplemental

41:08 ↗ information that would help um uh help

41:11 ↗ understand that and explain that to the

41:13 ↗ public that would probably be a valuable

41:14 ↗ thing. Um but I am excited this evening

41:17 ↗ to move forward with the

41:18 ↗ administration's recommendation. And I

41:21 ↗ also, you know, I wanted to clarify I am

41:24 ↗ fine with whatever mix of human services

41:28 ↗ providers um we need to get initially. I

41:31 ↗ have confidence that our city will come

41:33 ↗ up with a good mix um and that will be a

41:36 ↗ benefit to the residents uh both uh in

41:39 ↗ in that facility um and in our larger

41:42 ↗ community.

41:44 ↗ >> Uh Council Member Dash.

41:46 ↗ >> Oh, thank you.

41:47 ↗ >> Deputy Council President D. Michelle.

41:49 ↗ >> Thanks. Just to follow up on your

41:50 ↗ remarks too, uh uh the the statement

41:54 ↗ that they had in the packet, let me go

41:56 ↗ back here. Creativity and flexibility

41:58 ↗ are required to provide needed services.

42:00 ↗ And having served on the Together Center

42:02 ↗ board for 10 years, and I really want to

42:04 ↗ acknowledge that John Writtenhouse has

42:06 ↗ served on the Together Center board much

42:08 ↗ longer than I did, uh we saw creativity

42:12 ↗ and flexibility in in motion. And uh the

42:16 ↗ outcomes are positive but it does take

42:20 ↗ some uh some ability to adjust to what

42:24 ↗ the market needs, what the clients need,

42:28 ↗ uh what the people who are running the

42:30 ↗ operation need. All of those things need

42:32 ↗ to be very flexible. Uh and then you can

42:35 ↗ reach and and everybody being uh let's

42:38 ↗ say um honest partners in the process.

42:43 ↗ uh and you can get to some really really

42:46 ↗ wonderful things uh with that process,

42:48 ↗ but you do have to be thinking flexibly

42:50 ↗ over time and with a long-term vision

42:53 ↗ like we've talked about. So, I just

42:55 ↗ wanted to added that add that um that

42:58 ↗ will be part of the process that we'll

42:59 ↗ be going through as this develops.

43:02 ↗ >> Yeah.

43:05 ↗ Council member Ray, you have a quizzical

43:07 ↗ look on your face. Would you like to um

43:10 ↗ share any further thoughts? Um, no. I

43:13 ↗ just don't want us to sell ourselves

43:14 ↗ short. I mean, I think I I I understand

43:17 ↗ your point. I agree with 100% of what

43:19 ↗ you said. I I heard your point. I I

43:22 ↗ don't have the data, so I can't refute

43:24 ↗ that um that there's no other options. I

43:26 ↗ just think that um focusing on one thing

43:31 ↗ to the exclusion of everything else um

43:34 ↗ can lead to um suboptimal decisions. And

43:37 ↗ I don't want us to not get the most we

43:39 ↗ can for the money we're going to spend.

43:41 ↗ So like I said, I am 100% on board with

43:44 ↗ spending 7 to10 million on a human

43:47 ↗ services facility. I just don't know

43:49 ↗ that this is the where I would spend it.

43:52 ↗ So before I say, "Yay, yay, yay, let's

43:54 ↗ go do this one." I want to know that I

43:56 ↗ don't have any other options that are

43:57 ↗ better.

43:58 ↗ So my question for you then is in

44:02 ↗ getting the sense of this body um I mean

44:06 ↗ we're not taking a we we're not taking a

44:08 ↗ formal vote today but you know is the

44:11 ↗ sense of the body sort of two to one on

44:13 ↗ this issue.

44:19 ↗ I don't um I really honest with you and

44:22 ↗ I think that was the perplexed look you

44:24 ↗ were you were seeing was I don't know I

44:27 ↗ I don't know how I feel. I mean if if we

44:29 ↗ if this was the September council

44:31 ↗ meeting and we were doing a vote I don't

44:33 ↗ know how I would vote quite honestly.

44:35 ↗ >> Um but I just don't want us to like I

44:37 ↗ said I just don't want us to sell

44:38 ↗ ourselves short. We don't get many bites

44:40 ↗ at the apple you know take a big one.

44:42 ↗ So, I just want to make sure that

44:44 ↗ whatever we're doing um to move this

44:47 ↗ forward that we're getting because this

44:49 ↗ is a lot. This is a lot more than we

44:50 ↗ started with. I mean, it started as a $3

44:52 ↗ million problem and then it became a,

44:55 ↗ you know, a $5 million problem and then

44:56 ↗ a $7 million problem and it probably is

44:59 ↗ a $10 million problem. So, like I said,

45:01 ↗ if if we're going to solve the problem,

45:03 ↗ let's get the most bang for our buck.

45:05 ↗ So, that's all I'm all I'm asking for.

45:08 ↗ So I will then took turn to the city

45:10 ↗ administrator and ask the question which

45:13 ↗ is always the question which is have you

45:15 ↗ received uh the information from this

45:17 ↗ body that you would like or would you

45:18 ↗ like me to try to parse it a little

45:20 ↗ further here?

45:21 ↗ >> Uh Mr. Chair, members of the committee u

45:23 ↗ we would like a recommendation to the

45:25 ↗ full council. Um but before you consider

45:29 ↗ that perhaps I can address council

45:30 ↗ member Ray's uh points a little bit. Um

45:34 ↗ we're still in the process of of sorting

45:37 ↗ out who will the tenants will be and

45:39 ↗ it's our expectation uh that there will

45:42 ↗ be financial participation from those

45:44 ↗ tenants and so that uh will increase the

45:47 ↗ revenue that's coming to the city and I

45:49 ↗ think change some of the equations as to

45:52 ↗ cost. Uh we'd also like the opportunity

45:54 ↗ to go back to uh KCHA over the next week

45:57 ↗ or so and get more clarity. Uh

46:00 ↗ admittedly we are not 100% in your staff

46:03 ↗ support this evening. Uh so we do not

46:05 ↗ have all of the answers we would

46:07 ↗ otherwise like. Uh we feel pretty

46:09 ↗ confident though that between now and

46:10 ↗ next week we can uh have those answers.

46:13 ↗ I would imagine this will be on the

46:14 ↗ council's regular uh business agenda. Uh

46:17 ↗ and so we will make sure that we address

46:19 ↗ council member Ray's uh points. Uh the

46:22 ↗ administration agrees 100% with council

46:25 ↗ member Ray that we want to make sure

46:27 ↗ that these dollars are best spent and

46:30 ↗ the dollars were spending acquaint to

46:32 ↗ appropriate services to be provided in

46:34 ↗ return. So uh we need to show our

46:36 ↗ homework a little bit more than we're

46:38 ↗ able to this evening. Um we will do that

46:40 ↗ a week from now. Uh so council member

46:43 ↗ Ray, you have our commitment in that

46:45 ↗ regard. Uh but we would like to get a

46:47 ↗ recommendation uh from the committee to

46:49 ↗ the full council.

46:52 ↗ Thank you for that clarification.

46:55 ↗ So

46:58 ↗ um

47:01 ↗ Deputy Council President D Michelle

47:04 ↗ >> um so um city administrator Bob Quitz,

47:09 ↗ if this is not what you want, please let

47:10 ↗ me know.

47:11 ↗ >> We could put the slide back up too. That

47:13 ↗ would be helpful.

47:14 ↗ >> Okay,

47:15 ↗ >> let's

47:15 ↗ >> see. Let me get to it.

47:21 ↗ reach the end.

47:28 ↗ >> So, the recommendation would be to uh

47:31 ↗ agree with the administration's re

47:33 ↗ excuse me.

47:34 ↗ >> Uh our recommendation would be to

47:36 ↗ proceed with building the opportunity

47:38 ↗ center without a currently identified

47:40 ↗ tenant or service provider.

47:42 ↗ >> That's correct.

47:43 ↗ >> Is that correct? All right. But it are

47:46 ↗ we allowed to pass. Is that a motion or

47:49 ↗ are we allowed to take a vote?

47:51 ↗ >> It was a recommendation from the

47:52 ↗ committee. Absolutely.

47:53 ↗ >> All right.

47:56 ↗ >> Do you wish to make a motion at this

47:58 ↗ time?

47:58 ↗ >> Oh, I just Yes. Uh I just did.

48:01 ↗ >> Oh, you did? That was okay. I just want

48:04 ↗ to make sure I thought it was phrased as

48:06 ↗ a question, but All right.

48:07 ↗ >> Yeah.

48:08 ↗ >> I think we all understand that you are

48:09 ↗ motioning Yes.

48:10 ↗ >> uh to move forward with the

48:12 ↗ administration's recommendation.

48:13 ↗ >> Exactly. Do we uh are we ready to

48:16 ↗ proceed to a vote?

48:19 ↗ >> Do you need a second?

48:21 ↗ >> Oh, okay. All right.

48:23 ↗ >> We don't need a second.

48:25 ↗ >> Not if it's coming from committee. It's

48:27 ↗ fine.

48:27 ↗ >> Parliamentarian.

48:29 ↗ >> No, we don't. All right.

48:30 ↗ >> Tish.

48:32 ↗ >> All in favor say I.

48:33 ↗ >> I.

48:34 ↗ >> I.

48:34 ↗ >> Opposed.

48:36 ↗ >> That motion carries three to zero.

48:37 ↗ >> Thank you.

48:39 ↗ >> Can I just make a kind of a

48:41 ↗ >> please

48:42 ↗ >> post vote comment? I am anxious to see

48:45 ↗ what the administration brings to the

48:47 ↗ full council and and I I am looking

48:50 ↗ forward to a another spirited

48:51 ↗ discussion.

48:54 ↗ >> I will deeply miss the and I'm not

48:58 ↗ trying to I mean I will deeply miss um

49:01 ↗ your rigor in these conversations,

49:02 ↗ Chris.

49:04 ↗ Uh with that I believe we are done. Any

49:06 ↗ announcements from anyone? Uh therefore

49:09 ↗ we are adjourned at 7:19 p.m.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF