Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CRA board debates governance options, directs staff to solicit Urban Core board applicants
Summary
Board members rejected a non‑sunshine “champions” model in favor of some form of sunshine advisory oversight. The CRA directed staff to solicit applicants to fill Urban Core redevelopment board vacancies for 30 days; that solicitation motion passed 5–0.
The CRA board discussed governance options for neighborhood redevelopment boards and stakeholder engagement, weighing two consultant options — (1) a non‑sunshine committee of “community champions” meeting monthly, or (2) a single sunshine CRA advisory board meeting monthly with district representatives and professionals — before directing staff to solicit applicants to fill vacancies on the Urban Core redevelopment board.
Why it matters: governance structure determines how neighborhood input is collected, how timely project review occurs and whether citizen participation is subject to Sunshine‑Law public meetings.
Consultant Megan O’Hara described two options. She said Option 1 would create a non‑sunshine committee of community champions to meet monthly and act as liaisons between neighborhoods and CRA staff. Option 2 would establish a single sunshine advisory board with representation from the CRA districts plus professional seats (finance, development, architecture) to meet monthly and provide project evaluation and recommendations.
Several CRA board members opposed the non‑sunshine option on transparency grounds. One board member said, “Hands down. I am anti option 1. ... If we’re bypassing that process, then it isn’t doesn't get to the general public to have knowledge of what's going on,” and argued that public access and formal meetings were important. Other members favored a sunshine board that meets more frequently to provide timely input; some expressed concern about representation balance between districts of differing project volume.
Public commenters urged patience and stronger neighborhood participation. James Gulley argued existing board procedures had been changed and urged clearer public processes. Tony McRae Jr. and Jeanne Roden asked that the existing governance structure be given a chance or be strengthened rather than replaced. Staff said East Side and West Side boards have enough members for quorums but Urban Core lacked sufficient membership.
After discussion, a CRA member moved and the board voted to solicit applicants to fill Urban Core redevelopment board vacancies for a 30‑day solicitation period; the motion passed 5–0. Staff said it had delayed filling vacancies previously because a structural change was under consideration and offered to proceed with solicitation if the board wished.
Board members asked staff to return with clearer guidance on board composition, roles and meeting frequency so any new or reconstituted board can operate with staff support and defined responsibilities.
