Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK now our two added items: Hill hotel and the prairie dogs.

If these hadn't been added, I'd be going home right now. *sigh*

This vote is just about scheduling, Jones reminds ppl. On the Hotel, "it's about do we want to have more public process before we give direction to staff or not?"

Carr: City support for the hotel project has disappeared "entirely." Now all staff wants to do is sell the parking lot.

Any deal would return to council. This isn't an approval to sell. Just an approval to spend some staff time.

Yates: How many hours are we talking? Primarily lawyers, right?
Carr: It's a relatively straightforward transaction. We're very worried about getting ahead of council on this.

Weaver: It seems odd to have a public hearing when we don't even know if we have an offer. We'd want to know something more about the building form. We no longer have a $6M gap we're doing anything about.

"I would like to have a public hearing with the knowledge of what does the package look like."

Morzel: I asked for this (nod of five) bc otherwise it would have been 'Oh did you see this?'

"We haven't had a public hearing on this (matter). At all."

"It's gotten a lot better. No $22M parking lot. No feasibility gap that in January would have been impossible to do without."

The memo everyone is quoting is confidential, so all I know about it is coming from the dais.

"I personally would like to have a public hearing before we send our staff into negotiating this."

Apparently the memo includes what the parking lot is worth. That's why it's confidential.

"There are things I have to have, one of them is that we get the price we want. It's not negotiable." (Still Morzel)

Reiterating her concerns about the hotel size. "I don't know why they need our city land. If they want to go forward without city land and reduce the size and massing, then I'm open to talk."

Brockett agrees with Weaver on a public hearing to approve the deal. "The Hill businesses keep coming to us and keep crying for this."

Yates echoes that.

Yates: We still have to do concept review, site review (which will handle the hotel's size, etc.) The negotiation for the land might include some of those details, bc they're not going to buy this land if they can't build the hotel they want.

"I don't think we're approving a hotel. We're approving staff going to talk to somebody. We have lots of bites at the apple here."

Morzel: My q is, can they build the hotel without the land?
Young: That can happen in concept. The deal is going to be contingent on that. If they're not happy and we're not happy, it's not going to happen.

Jones agrees with "the boys."
"There's a concern the Hill is declining and has been for awhile. It's starting to feel like a crisis situation. We keep making them come and say that to us."

"Part of good public process is not to fatigue the public who has told you they need a catalyst project. In the 8 yrs I've been on council (plus 2 before) this is the best (project) that has come forward. There's concern we're not hearing them."

"There's sentiment on the Hill that we're just stringing it along."

Morzel: I would like to have a third-party analysis of does a hotel make sense. We haven't had that. It's just a feel-good thing.

Also concerned about parking.
Jones brings up the CU conference center, which will include parking.

Young: I think we can accomplish both what Sam and what Lisa wants. At the public hearing for the sale, that's where to make the decision if we want to let go of that property. Agrees with Lisa that a third-party analysis is needed.

"The way this has progressed has not gained trust with me."
It's like $22M, OK we can do without that. Then suddenly the feasibility gap disappeared. "These things are just sort of... it's almost as if they are..."
Jones: "Listening to us?"

Jones: To me, that's them going, they're serious. The feasibility gap means there won't be a public plaza. The project has changed bc we're not sure we want to spend any $$. This is all them trying to anticipate what we've been saying.

Young: Bottom line, I would like to see some third-party analysis without the land assemblage.

Young: I do have this concern. If there is no public plaza, and the idea is that ppl will go to the Hill, what's to keep ppl from just walking 10 min to downtown?

So they didn't want to pay for a public plaza, but they don't like it without that... ? Got it.

Weaver: It's about use. That Pleasant Street lot isn't used very much. The $$ could go to parking that would be used.

Story idea: Boulder's most valuable parking lots, measured by what council/community was willing to give up in order to keep them.

Nagle speaks: I don't know. It's just a negotiation, I guess, but I'm more stuck on the size and why do we need to sell our parking lot. There's other options.

189 rooms. "It just seems ridiculous at that spot for that density."

Seems to agree with everyone..?

Morzel: As far as Mary's point to lack of trust, it's not like these guys have never been here. It's the same guys that did 11th and Pearl. There's not a lot of confidence there that they can build a tasteful building that will fit in with the Hill.

"It's a massive, massive building. It needs a lot of consideration and change. So hopefully they're hearing us."

Staff will proceed with negotiating, "noting we are not deciding whether we will accept it," Jones says. Public hearing once there is an offer.

Gonna add pdogs to this one, too. This is also a nod of five. There is a May 7 discussion on pdog working group recommendations. No public hearing with that. Morzel wants a public hearing.

"It is a very full night" Jones says. So they would add a meeting May 16.

Oh, JK. May 16 is *another* special meeting on Alpine Balsam. So they would have to add A SECOND SPECIAL MEETING

May 7, council will be looking at open space staff about the working group recommendations, part 2. Phase 1 was in the fall.
Jane Brautigam: Request was staff to figure out how to fit those things into their time/budget. That's what you'll be hearing May 7.

Nagle: PRAB didn't vote on this yet. Neither has EAB (Nagle actually said, Environmental Board, and then asked, EAB, right? I'd like to point she is ON THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF BOARDS/COMMISSIONS)

Sorry, but special meetings get me riled.

Anyway, Nagle wants to delay the May 7 update anyway, until PRAB and EAB weigh in.

Brockett asks Nagle: Are you asking for a delay in hearing it under matters, or a delay in the public hearing?
Nagle: "I'm not interested in having a public hearing bc the whole idea of the working group .... they have the answers ... that are not lethal control."

Says OSBT recommended lethal control. PRAB "from what I understand talking to many of them" will have a different opinion.

Weaver: It does seem premature to have that hearing May 7 if we don't have a full suite of board recommendations.

Morzel: Council in Jan. 15 accepted the study session notes on Phase 2 recommendations from Dec.
"Now we have ppl who are not happy with the prairie dog working group and they're going outside and we have OSBT undermining the direction we had all agreed upon."

"To me to have this at this point in time is unfortunate and premature."

SHE BROUGHT THIS UP! WHAT THE ACTUAL F?

Jones: The question is do we want a public hearing.
Morzel: No, since in my mind we've already had that public hearing. (This vote was her idea. I'm so freaking confused.)

Young and Brockett agree, no public hearing.

Yvette Bowden writes in from home: PRAB did/does not plan to vote, as they consider it a policy matter for council.

Nagle: This might want to be explained to PRAB bc the ppl I spoke with were not under that impression.

Brockett: Maybe we consider this in, mid-July? but leave it as a matter, not a public hearing.
Jones also OK with no public hearing. And board input is helpful so I don't mind waiting for that.

"I don't want to chastise open space. Open space is recognizing that there's conflict, it's increasing. What they basically said was, we have a problem, council deal with it."

The question isn't lethal control, she said, but realizing we have a conflict. We can deal with that how we want. "We didn't have good ag representation on our prairie dog working group and it's coming back to bite us."

Weaver: It's pretty clear we do have some conflict in our management goals. That's not uncommon. It's not that surprising, really. Open space board did their job in calling out that challenge.

General consensus here is no public hearing May 7, and that discussion will likely be rescheduled for after all the boards weigh in.

Nagle says if lethal control is not being considered, she's fine having the discussion May 7. "I'm all for getting everyone what they need as long as lethal control is not on the table."

Jones: It's in the toolbox. We just haven't used it.
Weaver: It has to be talked about bc one of our major boards brought it up.

Yates: Let's not let this drag on too long. Ag farmers are quite anxious, Open space board was clear.

Time 6-8 wks after EAB and PRAB have met seems to be the goal.

That's all for tonight, folks. See you in TWO WEEKS! YAY!

Last unroll @threadreaderapp, if you please. Thank you!