At the heart of the meeting was the presentation of the final draft of the downtown master plan by Al Ladimer, the Economic Development Director. This plan, crafted over 18 months by consulting firms led by Mig, aims to guide future development in the downtown area. However, the process leading to the master plan’s creation drew criticism from some commissioners who questioned the transparency and inclusiveness of the selection process. One commissioner particularly voiced dissatisfaction, arguing that the decision-making process did not align with the consensus of the commission and highlighted the necessity for a consultant with relevant experience in land development and economic planning. This commissioner emphasized the importance of a transparent process and lamented their exclusion from reviewing the proposals submitted by consulting firms.

The dissatisfaction centered on the lack of a workshop to collectively review the master plan, with calls for such a session to allow commissioners to ask questions and ensure that the decision-making process was thorough and transparent. The commissioner reiterated the commission’s previous agreement on involving all members in notable decisions impacting the city’s future. Another commissioner acknowledged the intention behind hiring the consulting firm and suggested that interviewing multiple firms might not be feasible, but engaging with the top two could provide better clarity.

Concerns were also raised about the roles within proposals submitted for development projects. The evaluation process, which used a rating system to rank proposals, led to the unanimous selection of a top proposal, but questions about the clarity of roles within other proposals persisted. Specifically, the involvement of Dr. Richard Levy in a second-ranked proposal raised doubts about the transparency of partnerships and potential conflicts of interest.

Participants in the meeting questioned the bundling of redevelopment projects into a single plan, advocating for a phased approach that would allow for adjustments based on outcomes. One speaker criticized the all-or-nothing methodology, arguing that it limited flexibility and could overlook broader implications for surrounding areas and community needs. Calls for a workshop to thoroughly discuss the development plans aimed to ensure that all logistical concerns, such as public parking and community uses, were adequately addressed before making decisions.

The meeting also touched on the hiring of a development and redevelopment consultant, Goldman and York, with a proposed budget of $80,000 for their services through the year. Concerns were voiced about the transparency of the consultant’s work and the terms of the contract, with one board member insisting on public access to such documents. The chairman defended the city’s procedures, urging against insinuations of impropriety and emphasizing the community’s best interests.

As the meeting concluded, the board faced a divided vote on the motion to adopt the master plan recommendation, highlighting differing opinions on the need for transparency and review. Some members favored moving forward, while others stressed the importance of ensuring a master plan that the community could confidently support. Additionally, the board addressed procedural complexities regarding budget amendments and resource allocation for the consultant’s engagement.