Several Lewiston residents told the Lewiston City Council on Dec. 9 they were not consulted about a proposed transitional-housing project planned for a neighborhood park and asked the city to open any lease or sale to public notice and competitive offers.

The comments came during the public-comment portion of the regular council meeting. Residents said an agency is pursuing a lease for property near 22nd Street that they consider parkland and that neighbors have not been contacted about the project.

"This whole project has kind of been slid under the rug to our neighborhood. There has been no community outreach," said Linda Glines, who identified herself as a Lewiston resident. "We would prefer to have our park back … If you're not going to give us our park back there are people that live and do business down in that area that would put a project in that are interested in possibly leasing or purchasing it should you surplus it."

Angela Howard, also a Lewiston resident, said she and other neighbors — including people who care for family members nearby — have not found anyone in the neighborhood who supports placing the project at that location. Howard asked whether leases are handled privately or advertised to the public and said she thought it would be better to solicit public bids so taxpayers and neighbors have a say.

Mike Band echoed the concerns and said local investors are interested in either leasing or buying the site and that the council should "put a hold on this until we have an opportune time" to consider listing the property for sale or lease. Jennifer Squires and Rick Blinds described the property as an unused park that had suffered from lack of maintenance and said they would prefer the city restore recreational use.

Council members did not debate the underlying proposal during public comment. Councilor Forsman reminded the public that Idaho open-meeting law (Idaho Code) limits council discussion of matters that are not on the meeting agenda and said the item will come before the council at a later meeting. Later in the meeting, the council passed a separate motion directing staff to bring options for auctioning the 5th and Bridal property to a January work session; that vote was taken as an agenda item and is reported separately by the council in official actions.

The comments at the Dec. 9 meeting did not result in any policy decision about the park or a lease. Residents asked the council to require community outreach and to consider advertising any lease or sale so interested buyers or lessees in the city may submit proposals.

The city clerk closed the public-comment period after multiple speakers raised related concerns. The council did not adopt new procedures at the Dec. 9 meeting; councilors indicated the matter will be eligible for discussion when it appears as a scheduled agenda item in the future.