call to order the CRA meeting. Ms. Beggerell, please call the roll. Commissioner Anderson? Here. Commissioner Andreu? Here. Commissioner Fadgen? Here. Commissioner Horland? Here. Commissioner Reinstein? Here. Commissioner Sortel? Here. Assistant City Attorney Morgan? Here. Thank you very much, Ms. Beggerell. So the CRA consent agenda consists of items one through five tonight and may be approved with one motion. Does any member of the commission wish to pull an item? One. Anybody else? Any member of the public? Okay. Do I have a motion for items two through five? So moved. Second. Ms. Beggerell, please call the roll. Commissioner Anderson? Yes. Commissioner Andreu? Yes. Commissioner Fadgen? Yes. Commissioner Horland? Yes. Commissioner Reinstein? Yes. Commissioner Sortel? Yes. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Fadgen, item number one is to execute the amended agreement to fund sellers closing cost for the 9-16-2026 CRA approved purchase of 1050 and 1100 South State Road 7 to complete a half acre assemblage with the adjacent CRA on 1040 South State Road 7 to provide additional fee simple attainable townhome units for hometown heroes. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess this might be for Glenn. Reading the backup and reliving this history of this thing. So January 1st, 2026, the property was appraised for $548,000. Then we approved the purchase of the property for $700,000. And now we're going to fund the seller's cost? I mean, why? He's already getting a great deal from us, isn't he? Yes. Yes. But we had a subsequent offer that came in between the time of our negotiation with the owner, a legitimate offer for the full asking price of $750,000. So he had a, we weren't under contract? We had an agreement as far as, you know, some of these projects, we don't have a full engaged contract before council, but we did have an agreement to sell it at that price. And we went to pick up the purchase and sale agreement. He requested a modification from the original agreement. And that's why we're back here now just to pay the closing costs, which can go up to $9,000, to not have it be purchased by a full price offer that was legitimate. Do we know who was purchasing it? Yeah, I met the person actually. And what was their plans? They came in asking for information on zoning, et cetera. They wanted to do an office building there. Would that have been terrible? Well, you know, trying to purpose this as far as combining it to make a half acre site to do townhomes for our first responders. That's the plan. And as you know, there's a lot of speculation within the area. You have a lot of folks coming in. But, you know, we don't get a lot of offers to do commercial space like office space. So I think that was something we probably should have considered a little bit more. But I'm just like we had a deal with the guy and then we have to redo the deal. Now that just doesn't sit well with me. Well, sometimes we're having we have conversations. As you know, we don't have brokers on these transactions. And then the other part of it, he would be buying the property and then he would have been investing in the ability and then would have saved us $700,000. I think that might have been an agreeable thing. OK, I'm not going to make a motion on this, but you answered my question. Thank you. Councilman Reinstein. Yeah, just thank you very much. I just want to follow up on that. So we had agreed to the council, the commission had agreed to $700,000. You're saying that somebody else came in with $750,000. Full price. Full price. And the seller is willing to not accept full price if we pay $8,000 in closing costs. Up to, yes. Up to $8,000 in closing costs. And then just I thought I also heard you mention up $9,000, but it's up to $8,000 was what it said in the backup. Yes, I mean, I am. OK. I will tell you that this also didn't sit very well with me. I understand the purpose and it's tough to pass up on this plan to assist our hometown heroes. But the idea that this person got an agreement for $700,000 and then is backing out on that because they want more money, it doesn't actually add up if they were about to get $750,000 from somebody else. So if they wanted, I mean, they're agreeing to $8,000 more when somebody else was willing to give them $42,000 more than that. Well, they are – It just doesn't seem to add up. They got a subsequent offer is what we're saying on a full price. Right. So they're already backing out on our deal because they want more money, but then they didn't take the full price $750,000. I'm – well, what I'm saying is, is that we have a verbal agreement with this person. Right. Which they – which they backed out on. Well, I wouldn't say backed out in the sense because they could have taken the $750,000 offer, but they're saying – But that's my point. That's – it doesn't make sense that they didn't take the full $750,000. They're backing out on our $700,000, asking us now only for $8,000 more instead of asking us to match the additional $50,000. So they're being agreeable. I mean, they see the whole idea of them wanting to do it at a little bit over $700,000 is that they agree with the end use. I think that's very generous to call them agreeable by raising the deal from $700,000 to $708,000. I mean, they have us – you know, they heard us agree on council to $700,000, and now they're asking for more. I mean, it doesn't sound very – Well, you see, I think also in a memo – I mean, the memo, and even the previous memo, these are real estate investors. He's a real estate investor, and he knew about our purchase next door. So he knows that we're trying to do an assemblage, and that that's what's going on within the area. Because now, you know, you've seen the Urban Land Institute's profile. You've seen a lot of the press that we're getting, and we're getting a lot now of people coming in and asking questions about different properties. It's increasing. So there is a lot of speculation going on in the district right now. Well, but to that point, that was one of the concerns that you raised before us that led to the $700,000 was the concern with speculation. But I think to Council Member Fadgen's point, or at least what I heard, was that there was somebody else who was willing to buy it, and they weren't just a speculator who was going to build something outrageous. They were going to build office space. They were considering that. There wasn't a full plan. They were asking us what could they do per the zoning. They didn't come with a plan. They were asking us information that came to the office. So they didn't have a formalized plan. They didn't have renderings. They didn't have any. All they were asking was about zoning information that they possibly could do office. There wasn't a plan. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Before I let Council Member Anderson in, we knew this was the chance that we would be up against, and we knew, you know, and I think that while it doesn't sit well with any of us, it's a negotiation. And once we started accomplishing what we have in that CRA, and, you know, we talked about it with that first parcel, the desire was to get those two other pieces so we could build affordable townhomes for our first responders. So I don't want to lose sight of what we're trying to accomplish there. Again, it's a negotiation. They could have taken the $750, but if it means paying the selling cost, you know, I think we have to stay with our original intent. Council Member Anderson, or Commissioner Anderson, and then Commissioner Badner. I have two different – I have – this actually is a question for Quentin, Attorney Morgan. At what – I'm not privy to the negotiations they're doing, but at what point does it become a verbal agreement that is binding when they're in their negotiations? When the contract's signed. Only at signature? When you say, okay, I'm going to do it, and I'll go drop the contract. That's not a verbal agreement? You can't have verbal agreement for real estate. Okay. So that's what I want to know. You can't have a verbal agreement for real estate. So the negotiation, essentially, he's amending it before it hits the contract. It's not – it wasn't set in stone until we actually vote on it, which is now. Well, even the vote doesn't get you all the way there. It has to be a fully signed – Right. You still have other steps of signing. You're just giving Glendon the authorization to move forward. We have to be transparent, right. Right. All right. All right. Thank you. That's the part. The second part I have – I don't know if you can answer it. I just know we've talked about this for years, and I think they just haven't come all the way to fruition yet. But are any of our – and they're not all you either, so really it's Mr. Alpert. Have any of the things that we've approved that we have had – Hometown Hero or first right of refusal for our first responders – have any of those come to fruition and have any of our first responders taken advantage of it? And I'll tell you what I'm getting at. Okay. I'm getting at what is our real demand? Like, I don't want to build things that are – that were slated for our first responders, and we don't have them actually need as much as we're building. Well, it's not – it's going to be a fair amount. It's going to be first responders. It's going to be teachers, nurses. I know. City employees who want to have a piece of the city. And I know the one over on Old Peters Road was going to have a piece of that, correct? Yeah. Right now we're going through the planning process. I know there – we talked about them years ago. Has anything come to fruition where people have actually moved in yet? Well, they haven't been built. We're going through the planning process. We had a consultant – we had a consultant that we had to change. Okay. I just want to address it. We've been mired in bureaucracy. Yeah. So we've been trying to plant this one piece of property on Peters. So we haven't even been able to test it. But I think to Glendon's point, it's not just about first responders. It's also about hospital workers. And I would invite you all to look at, you know, more – the most recent jobs report that was largely negative. The positive light was on the medical community, which obviously we're blessed with. It is continually growing. The mayor and I had an opportunity to visit Westside. They've got an aggressive growth plan. So we know that the need is there. We know the affordability issue is there. Frankly, it's embarrassing that it's taken us so long. And I'm not blaming us, but the planning process, to have to go through those processes to create affordable housing is very frustrating. We also have Mr. Prentiss, who's going to be coming out of the ground. He's got an amendment he needs to bring forward, I believe, in November. That is going to provide some affordable units. So they are coming. It wasn't a criticism. I just know we've talked about it so long. Right. It's really my own memory. I can't remember, has anything actually been built with someone moved in yet? I just wanted to acknowledge that it's ridiculous it's taken this long. That wasn't my goal to – No, but I get you, but I just want to be candid about that because it's taken longer than it should because you're asking a question, why has it taken a couple years? So that you – but you're kind of answering my questions. We don't have anything yet, and you know there's a need, so there's a need for this. Yes, sir. And also, too, the properties that we are picking up, these are typically nuisance properties and vacant properties. The two properties we're picking up right now that we're talking about tonight, they were bought in 1969. They haven't traded since then. So we have a vacant property. We're talking about tax base increase from a vacant property into fee simple. An adjacent property that we already purchased, it was a nuisance property. It was vacant. We have homeless breaking into it. So we're doing very aggressively in taking care of our nuisance properties and vacant sites to increase our tax base. And as you know, per the survey, the number one desire for residents is affordable housing, and we're addressing that. But not only on the rental side, which we're doing on Peter's Road, but also this is definitely fee simple, which has always been a request from council. It has been the desire of council, and that's why we don't want to lose sight of. That's why we're trying to address that. Anything else, Council Member Anderson? No, I don't love what they're doing there, but I understand what we're up against. Council Member Fadgen, then Council Member Andrea, or Commissioner. Sorry. You know, I feel the negotiation was done when we approved the $700,000. If this passes, I think we should reach out to them. What can be built there? They asked the question. And so what could be put there? What could be, what's it zoned for? Well, it. As is right now? As is right now, it's fairly mixed. Right now we have a lot of homes that have been converted into office space. Correct. Okay. Through there, right? So they're not looking to convert. I know they didn't have any site plans, but they were suggesting building an office. Yeah, possibly an office, but there's no issues, well, details as far as height, et cetera. They were just asking information. I think that if this gets approved tonight, I think they need to be reached out to. I think a discussion of office space focused on medical would make a lot of sense with, you know, the Palms being there. So I'm not thrilled about the negotiation was done. So what happens if the next guy comes in, $800,000? Okay, we want $730,000 because we're in the process of getting the paperwork and check. You know, if he really is being magnanimous, then he would sell it to us for $700,000 and absorb his costs. You know, so he's coming back to the well. I'm not thrilled about it. Well, he's already signed the contract with the adjustment. So when we sign it now, it will be fully executed. So he's already agreed to the amount right now. It's already signed on his side. Right. Yes. So I'm saying there's not going to be any memo back and forth. Once we get approval tonight, all we do is sign it and it's done. Okay. Council Member Andrea, Commissioner. That was my exact question. So none of us are pleased that the verbal agreement was changed. But I, at the end of the day, still would like the affordable housing. And the big difference is exactly what you stated. It's ownership. It is not rentals. If it were rentals, I probably would not have a yes vote today because I would tell this gentleman, go ahead then and get the better offer, take the better offer. But this is ownership. And so I would like to move forward, even though we don't want him changing the terms again. So I'm glad you have it in writing. And I feel comfortable knowing that you have it in writing approving this tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Reinstein. Yeah. I don't want to belabor this any longer, but I'm not comfortable with it. And to the point that Commissioner Anderson was making is that, you know, we've been all very clear about wanting workforce housing, wanting hometown heroes housing, yet we have quite a bit that is in the hopper that hasn't been platted, hasn't been built yet, hasn't been filled yet. And so while I think there's always going to be a need for more, you know, I don't – I'm not comfortable with the way that this was negotiated at all. And I'm afraid that we're now going to set a precedent that every time that we vote before council and we approve a number, then the seller is going to look at that as being the new starting price for a negotiation. And, you know, I don't know the seller. I have no idea what his or her intent was or what they were thinking. But if they really had a $750,000 purchaser and their goal was to get more money, I don't understand why they didn't take it. And they are forcing our hand on $8,000. If it was out of the goodness of their heart because they want to see the city have hometown heroes housing, then they would have accepted what they agreed to with the handshake. And so, you know, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth on this one. Thank you. Mayor. All kinds of ideas. We were there for the negotiation, Jason and me and him. The man is about 80, 85? Late 80s, early 90s possibly. He basically lives at Westminster Academy. He's there the whole time. And we could go back to him and say, we're not comfortable. Could you pull – can you throw a little bit back our way, you know, to even it out? I would recommend that because they've already signed the contract. So I think this would be best. Yeah, but I'm saying that's what – the other question was about office. We have the whole Bizet property, which is office and medical, and then we also have some medical available across the street from the ER. That's right. So – and the other part is I think it's important that this specific – I agree with you what you said, don't set a precedent and everything. This particular property is right across the street from the Palms. The Palms has been facing all kinds of problems of having – A lot of vagrancy, homeless. Yeah, give me the words. Yeah, yeah. And so this is a way to improve that area right near the Palms and everything. But overall, you know, if you want to say, you know, this is a straw that breaks the camel's back and I vote no. No, and I don't think it should be. I think we've all expressed that we're not happy with it. But, again, we have to look at the success that we're having out there, and we see the speculation. We had an email this week about the speculation out in that area that it's not always what we want. So just because somebody says they want to build office doesn't mean that's their intent. So while we don't like it, you know, I understand he wants to cover the rest of his costs. They've held on to it. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we're trying to assemble those properties because we've been very intentional about building that fee-simple housing. It's interesting because I'm going to talk about it at the end. Southwater Regional Planning Council is coming out with their new SEDS report. And when you start to look at what's happening with economic development, jobs market, you know, that is the biggest driver. You're right, it's medical. And the fact is they can't hire people because they don't have housing. So we need to look at what we're trying to accomplish in that corridor, which was based upon that ULI study, which is getting us a lot of press and a lot of attention. And it's going to happen, things like this are going to happen when the prices drive up in the negotiation. So, again, I want to be clear that we don't quibble over the $8,000 and get these properties assembled. So I don't see anybody else chimed in. I will make a motion to approve. Second. Okay. Ms. Beggarro, please call the roll. Commissioner Anderson. Reluctant, yes. Commissioner Andrew? Yes. Commissioner Bajan? No. Commissioner Horland? Yes. Commissioner Reinstein? Commissioner Sorrell? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Conklin, we don't have any other items. Mr. Conklin, you wanted to speak on public comment on the CRA, sir? Good evening, sir. Good evening. Dennis Conklin, 4581 Northwest Sixth Court. Heavenly hosts protect you and all of your families. Request recognition for the director of CRA. I didn't like the way the procedure went for this property either because of the ownership factor that that's what really gets the city over a barrel, the affordability. That and the fact that we're no longer on the gold standard because that's what really put us in this situation in the first place. So, with that, I will yield back my time. I think we'll see you soon. All righty. Again, thank you, Mr. Hall. And if there is no other public comment on the CRA, it is 6.30. We will adjourn the CRA meeting. Thank you.