2026-10-13 - City Council Special Meeting

09:07Good evening.

09:09I call to order

09:11uh the special City Council meeting of

09:14October 13th, 2026. Would you please

09:16call the roll?

09:17>> Of course. Mayor Vinker?

09:19>> Here.

09:20>> Councilmember Lowling?

09:21>> Here.

09:22>> Vice Mayor Stone?

09:23>> Here.

09:24>> Councilmember Rectal?

09:25>> Here.

09:25>> Councilmember Liu?

09:26>> Here.

09:26>> Councilmember Burt?

09:27>> Here.

09:28>> Councilmember Lefkowitz Hayes?

09:29>> Here.

09:29>> For the record, all present.

09:31>> All right, thank you. So, it is a

09:34special meeting, so our only

09:36uh well, I guess I need to ask the city

09:39manager technically on here is agenda

09:40changes, additions, and deletions, Mr.

09:42City Manager?

09:43>> No changes. Thank you, Mayor.

09:44>> Okay, thank you.

09:45Uh, our only item is uh, action item

09:48one.

09:49Potential release of documents related

09:51to offer to purchase Coverly Community

09:53Center property.

09:55So,

09:56I'm just going to briefly say that uh,

09:59there has been public interest in the

10:01information available to council.

10:04At the time that the agreement was

10:05struck with PAUSD for the conditional

10:07sale to the city of seven of the 35.5

10:11acres of Coverly property.

10:14So, on October 5th, the city and the

10:16district released a joint statement

10:18providing information including

10:20appraisal information, third-party

10:22interest in purchasing the property, the

10:24difficulty of valuing the property due

10:26to a lack of comparable sites, and more.

10:29So, while we released more information

10:32than uh, was asked for, we did not

10:34include the actual appraisal documents.

10:37There is continued public interest in

10:38seeing those, so three of us including

10:41the vice mayor and me decided to put the

10:43topic on this special agenda so that

10:45council could discuss it.

10:48Now, I want to say to my colleagues

10:49because it is hard to discuss our

10:51reasons for releasing or not releasing

10:53the documents without describing the

10:56documents, and because that could

10:58disclose things that we haven't yet

10:59decided whether or not to disclose.

11:02I feel free to say what you want to say

11:05before our vote, but I will make sure to

11:07afford everyone the opportunity to say

11:10more about their reasonings if they

11:12choose after we take the vote because if

11:14then you can actually talk about what is

11:17in the documents. So, um, I think that's

11:20what we Yes, I'm getting nods from staff

11:23on that.

11:24Okay. So, um,

11:27it is on the floor open for discussion

11:30as to

11:32uh, comments on the potential release of

11:34documents related to the offer to

11:37purchase

11:38those 7 acres.

11:41Ah.

11:42Sure. Why don't we start with public

11:43comment?

11:50>> We have two requests to speak. Our first

11:53speaker is Ken H.

11:58>> Good evening.

12:00I wanted to comment

12:02um

12:03on what's in the Palo Alto Daily Post.

12:06There's a cartoon

12:07that's available.

12:09And I'm going to read this from chat GPT

12:12because he took a chat GPT cartoon as

12:16well.

12:17Palo Alto residents deserve transparency

12:21about Cubberley's valuation and the

12:23city's negotiations with PAUSD.

12:26There are all legitimate questions,

12:28but the absence of a purposely disclosed

12:31appraisal

12:33does not by itself prove that the

12:35proposed transaction is improper,

12:38that the price is unreasonable,

12:41or that J is a bad investment.

12:44The real question is what Palo Alto

12:46wants for its future.

12:48Cubberley represents an opportunity to

12:50preserve and expand community service

12:53facilities,

12:54meet long-term public needs,

12:57and make productive use of a valuable

13:00public access

13:01asset.

13:03Residents should demand responsible

13:05financial oversight, clear

13:07accountability, and public reporting on

13:10how the tax revenues are spent.

13:13They should also evaluate

13:15Measure G on its merits,

13:18not a cartoon

13:20suggesting that an unanswered questions

13:23automatically establish

13:25wrongdoing.

13:27Palo Alto deserves facts, transparency,

13:30and a serious debate about its future,

13:32not a caricature in place of one.

13:38I think that's enough.

13:39Thank you for your time.

13:44>> Our next speaker is Winter D.

13:51>> So, as we all know, unfortunately,

13:54um this wonderful effort to uh buy seven

13:59more acres at Cubberley to expand the

14:01services there eventually, and to

14:04refurbish the current uh

14:06uh

14:07eight acres and seven acres for a total

14:09of 15 acres that we would acquire. Um

14:13these are incredibly important

14:16um and worthy undertakings by our city.

14:20Um and certainly deserve the support of

14:24a half-penny

14:26rise in the tax in the sales tax to

14:29support uh being able to do so.

14:32I'm disheartened because of um so much

14:37misinformation that has been swapped out

14:39or so many much conceptual

14:42um confusion

14:45uh amongst some people.

14:47And I'm hoping that somehow we can

14:52come together better.

14:55I think also I must say on the part of

14:57the city, I think that in at certain

14:59times some information could have been

15:02furnished that it wasn't that you

15:06didn't, but that you didn't want to, but

15:09that you just didn't. So, I'm hoping we

15:11can perhaps come together. I'm also a

15:14little afraid that

15:16uh if you're do in fact release the

15:18appraisal um or appraisals uh

15:23and other documents, um um, which I'm

15:26assuming are completely sound,

15:28within the relevant parameters. I'm

15:31afraid they're going to be picked to get

15:34to death like crows on a squirrel, and

15:37um, you can't control that.

15:39So, I'm hoping for the best, and I just

15:42want to say something to each for you as

15:45a group, and for each of you that are

15:47sitting there making these decisions

15:49tonight.

15:50I have faith in you.

15:52Um, I don't always agree with you, not

15:54as a group, nor as individuals.

15:57Sometimes you frankly piss me off.

15:59But, um, I do believe that generally you

16:03do your very best. You're trying to feel

16:05your way through this, and I wish you

16:09good luck, and I will feel good about

16:13whatever you decide tonight.

16:15Thanks.

16:18>> And that concludes public comment on

16:19action item number one.

16:22>> All right, well, thank you, Madam Clerk,

16:24and thank you to our public commenters.

16:27Um,

16:28for colleagues, um, Vice Mayor Stone.

16:33>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

16:35I'll be I'll be quick. First, I want to

16:36thank the mayor and council member

16:38Lawing for your leadership in wanting to

16:40agendize this tonight, and I was

16:42enthusiastically

16:44in in concurrence of agendizing this, so

16:47that we can so that we can hopefully

16:49release the appraisal, and that the

16:51public can be fully aware of of all the

16:55the facts here, and I think one of my

16:58primary reasons

17:01is I've I've noticed throughout this

17:03campaign instead of discussions on the

17:08on the merits of the proposal, and there

17:11are strong arguments on on on both

17:14sides. Of course, personally, I think

17:16stronger arguments on the pro Measure J

17:19side.

17:20Uh

17:21but so much of the conversation has been

17:24distracted

17:25by this kind of whisper campaign about

17:29what is what is not contained in the in

17:32the appraisal, what is trying to be

17:34hidden from the public, and I think

17:35that's really distracting and often

17:38times being being weaponized by

17:40opponents to Measure J to really imply

17:44that there was something nefarious that

17:46is being hidden. There is There is not.

17:49I think it's I think it serves all of us

17:52to

17:53release the appraisal so that way we can

17:55have a real honest campaign on both

17:59sides that is focused on the merits of

18:01Measure J. And I I think this removes um

18:06that

18:07that that distraction. And so yeah, so

18:10I'm I'm supportive of releasing the

18:12appraisal and I hope my colleagues will

18:15join me in that. Thank you.

18:24>> Councilmember Lauing.

18:26>> Okay, thank you. Um

18:30I'm not quite sure what I'm not supposed

18:31to say, so interrupt me mid-sentence if

18:33I go the the wrong direction here, but

18:35um

18:36>> [clears throat]

18:38>> there's been a lot of public interest in

18:40releasing the appraisal from both the

18:42press and

18:44our residents.

18:45And

18:47now, particularly since the negotiations

18:49are are concluded between the two

18:50parties of PAUSD

18:53and the city,

18:55the issue of we're already still that

18:58we're still in negotiations is is off

19:00the table.

19:01And last week we did a release noting

19:05what these numbers are that we got in

19:07our appraisals, as well as the value

19:09that was

19:10placed on the transaction by the PAUSD.

19:15So,

19:16um

19:17we still got questions after that, which

19:19is why we're here, I think, uh because a

19:21number of people said, "That's not

19:22enough. We actually want to read the 200

19:25pages underneath those numbers."

19:27And uh so, I don't see a reason to deny

19:31that, particularly if people think that

19:33the city council or the or the city

19:36manager or the city attorney is is

19:37hiding something, uh because we are we

19:40are not.

19:41So, um

19:43I am

19:45very comfortable, uh barring any

19:47comments from my colleagues,

19:49uh saying that um we we should it's now

19:53a simple matter of transparency, and we

19:55should go ahead and release it. And it

19:58has some parallels uh to the

20:00uh investigation of the uh former

20:04planning and transportation

20:05commissioner, uh which was the same sort

20:07of discussion in which, you know, I was

20:09getting saying, "Let's let's support

20:11transparency, and just let the press and

20:13the other residents read whatever they

20:16want." So, uh I'm in a similar position

20:18now, and in support of releasing it.

20:28>> Councilmember Burt.

20:30>> Yes, um well, I'm going to support

20:33releasing the appraisal, but I'm um

20:37uh

20:38far from sanguine that uh releasing it

20:41will

20:42uh

20:43result in the opponents to the measure

20:45[clears throat]

20:46um

20:48uh

20:49treating it in a fair and objective way,

20:52as we had stated in

20:55our uh the memo that uh

20:57was released last week. Um not only was

21:01the negotiation between the city and the

21:04school district not one of based upon

21:08our appraisal versus their appraisal,

21:10but it was our appraisal versus um

21:13evaluation that they derived based upon

21:17um

21:18the long-term lease value from um kind

21:20of a highest and best legally permitted

21:23use for that space, which they had uh

21:27interest expressed from uh two different

21:29private schools, which is how they came

21:31up with their 90 million valuation.

21:35And

21:36um

21:37I unfortunately I anticipate that uh

21:40there will still be this hue and cry

21:42that somehow going into a real estate

21:45negotiation, one party's

21:48uh position

21:49uh

21:50should determine the outcome. That's not

21:53how negotiations occur. Fortunately, the

21:56uh negotiation resulted in a purchase

22:00price significantly closer to our

22:02proposal than the school district's

22:04proposal.

22:05And uh I think that is what should be

22:09known.

22:10Um

22:10But I also uh as I went back and looked

22:13at

22:14the discussion we had uh when we

22:18uh

22:19opted to go forward with um

22:22the agreement to purchase the property

22:25from the school district back in

22:27October of 2024,

22:30I think the most compelling arguments

22:31were actually made by former council

22:33member Co.

22:35Uh where she said she's also very

22:37excited about the purchase at the price

22:40that we agreed on.

22:42Um and she went on to say uh that

22:45naturally the purchase price was

22:47something that we did we did have to

22:49negotiate it, and we did it with fiscal

22:51responsibility

22:53and with fiscal diligence.

22:55Then she went on to say, "It's going to

22:57be in 2026's

23:00November ballot,

23:02but that's just the purchase price of

23:03the land. There's going to be also

23:06construction costs that we're going to

23:08have to look at and factor into the bond

23:10as well.

23:12And then lastly, she went on to thank

23:14staff as well for all the great job they

23:17do they did and saying that she wanted

23:20to emphasize that we did do it with

23:23fiscal diligence in terms of coming to

23:25this price.

23:27And yet we hear such a drastically

23:29different story today including uh from

23:32her saying that well, the city has said

23:35we're going to

23:37purchase the land with this um revenue

23:40and then we're saying we're going to

23:42refurbish the buildings and the

23:43utilities, which is it?

23:45And there's no clearer speaker that

23:49addressed that than uh former council

23:52member Coe herself.

23:54So,

23:55um it's baffling how someone can make

23:58these arguments with a straight face.

24:01Um but that's what we're facing and then

24:03fortunately

24:05we you know, we see on a national level

24:08uh that we have

24:09uh this breeding of distrust in

24:12institutions

24:13and really deliberate confusion

24:16with the public and we we observe that

24:18and talk about that.

24:20And we really have thought as a

24:22community uh we have stronger and better

24:26civil discourse that is seems to be

24:30honest and

24:32um

24:33and I'm I'm really disappointed that uh

24:37we're seeing a pattern locally that we

24:40we really um

24:42condemn nationally.

24:44Uh so,

24:45um I'm hoping that uh the transparent uh

24:49information will not result in um people

24:54taking a part of it a part of a part of

24:57it um and um uh trying to prove their

25:01point because out of a range of comps,

25:04they can find one or two that would

25:06support their argument, ignore

25:08the comps that don't support it, and

25:10ignore the valuation that the uh

25:13district placed on it going into the

25:15negotiation.

25:16Um

25:17but I I won't be surprised if that

25:19happens.

25:26>> Councilmember Rector.

25:28>> Yeah, yeah, thank you.

25:29Yeah, I spent a lot of time digging

25:30through this, and we knew ahead of time

25:32that there weren't very many good comps.

25:34This is such a unique project, unique

25:36parcel. And but overall, I thought the

25:39appraisal did a good job of finding

25:41things that were kind of in the

25:42ballpark. And it is a wide variety, and

25:44you'll see when when we release release

25:47it. But uh I they did a better job than

25:50I expected. It's really good data. I

25:52think it should be released. Uh uh I do

25:55think, as Winter said, there will be

25:57crows crows on a squirrel here.

26:00Uh we will see a lot of picking at it

26:02and um taking things out of context, but

26:05we expect that. Uh but overall, this I

26:07think this is good for transparency,

26:09good for the project. This is a good

26:11project, and I think we're paying a

26:13reasonable amount, and I think the

26:14public will see that.

26:25>> Councilmember Lifton Names.

26:26>> Thank you, Mayor.

26:29I too am in favor of releasing the

26:31appraisal

26:33appraisals. Um I think we've all learned

26:36a lot about how to conduct a process

26:38like this, should the city ever decide

26:40to do something

26:41along these lines ever again. There

26:43hopefully will have been a good

26:44note-taker along the way who can remind

26:46us then what we didn't necessarily know

26:49uh uh, when we went about this process.

26:51What to release when, how to balance

26:53duties of confidentiality with the

26:55public's right to transparency.

26:57Um, but I am clear,

26:59uh, for myself and for my colleagues

27:00that there was nothing nefarious, there

27:02is nothing we've been trying to hide.

27:04We've been trying to go about this in as

27:05diligent a way as possible.

27:08And, um, so I'm definitely in favor of

27:11releasing the appraisals and,

27:13um,

27:13and and still agree with Council Member

27:15Burt that it's not

27:17uh, likely to prevent the crows from

27:19attacking the squirrel. Um,

27:25I am baffled by former Mayor Burt's

27:27apparent change of mind.

27:28Particularly since she was not just one

27:30of seven on the dais on October 7th,

27:322024 voting to approve the purchase

27:34price for the land, but since she was

27:37one of three on the council's ad hoc

27:38along with Council Member Burt and

27:39myself who met behind closed doors with

27:42our staff and the school district's ad

27:44hoc and their staff

27:46over a series of meetings to exchange

27:49information, exchange arguments,

27:51exchange rationales,

27:53to negotiate and ultimately arrive at an

27:55agreed-upon price.

27:57It is baffling.

28:00Uh, it makes me sad, frankly, that

28:02somebody who was

28:04a key part of the process is now a key

28:07part of trying to undermine what this

28:09community has been demanding this city

28:12accomplish for decades.

28:17>> Councilmember Du.

28:19>> Thank you. I agree with everything

28:21that's been said so far and won't

28:22restate it. However, [snorts] I will

28:24make one point a little bit more

28:26explicit, which is that over the last

28:28month we've had multiple closed sessions

28:31entitled conference with real property

28:33negotiators about the property known as

28:36the Coverly site with the negotiating

28:38party the Palo Alto Unified School

28:40District in the context of

28:43uh, I won't go, of course, into the

28:45discussion within those closed sessions

28:48but in the context of negotiations where

28:51we are trying to do the best as

28:54fiduciaries for the city and also the

28:55school district

28:57trustees are trying to do the same.

28:59There were ongoing

29:03The closed sessions

29:05are agendas properly and there were

29:07ongoing discussions and in that context

29:10there are reasons to discuss and

29:16release the appraisal at this point.

29:20Um,

29:20the council member Lowing's point where

29:22we think that more discuss more uh

29:25discussions and negotiations may not be

29:27fruitful.

29:28Um,

29:31I'm making that point if it is helpful

29:34in clarifying the timing of this meeting

29:37and with that

29:39I'm happy to just move forward with

29:42uh

29:44with the motion. Uh, yeah, uh

29:48I will move that we release the

29:51uh

29:52Coverly appraisals.

29:53>> Yeah, I will second that.

29:55Do you want to speak further to your

29:57motion?

29:57>> No.

29:58>> Okay. Well, I will speak to my second.

30:00Uh, that way we can be efficient. So, I

30:02continue to support disclosure of the

30:05appraisals.

30:06Um,

30:07while I do not believe that the

30:09appraisal is dispositive because as has

30:11been discussed valuing property, this

30:14particular property is hard due to

30:18a lack of comparable sites although I

30:20agree with Council member Rextall that

30:22they did the best they could, a pretty

30:24good job and and helped us understand

30:28different valuation uh

30:30uh criteria. Um,

30:33I so

30:34so I don't believe uh that it's

30:36dispositive but I also don't believe

30:38there's sufficient basis for withholding

30:40um the appraisal documents because the

30:43appraisal relates to public land that

30:45would be paid for with public money.

30:48And the public will be voting on whether

30:50to support that with a sales tax in less

30:52than 30 days.

30:54Um I think it's a much stronger case

30:56than the commissioner investigation

30:57because it does not involve any

30:59witnesses, so we won't be breaking any

31:01promises or chilling any whistleblowers.

31:04And the bottom line is that while this

31:06is not dispositive about whether the

31:08price is correct, and there will be

31:10picking at it. Um it is an attempt to

31:12prove a negative that we are not hiding

31:15anything.

31:16So uh those are the reasons for my

31:18second. And uh is there any further

31:20discussion on the motion?

31:25Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you

31:26please call the roll?

31:31Oh.

31:33We're on our new uh touchscreen, folks,

31:35so please vote on your screen.

31:39I'll eventually get used to that. Maybe.

31:41Maybe.

31:41>> Uh Mayor, actually I should I should

31:43have interjected earlier, but before you

31:45actually vote uh

31:47for clarity, there was reference to

31:49appraisals do on a confirm that we're

31:52referring to

31:53both documents uh that uh were uh

31:56developed and uh reflect appraisal

32:00reports.

32:03>> Both the

32:04>> That was my intention.

32:05>> Yeah. Okay. And mine as well, and we can

32:06explain that further at large. Go ahead,

32:08Mr. City Attorney.

32:08>> Yeah, and and and um the reference in

32:11the motion to documents, is that is that

32:13referred to documents other than the two

32:15appraisals?

32:15>> No, I'm not sure we need the documents

32:17and

32:18I think it can just be appraisal. Cuz I

32:20don't know what other documents there

32:22are

32:22that would unless

32:24>> I I I I was just going to underline that

32:26point that there are

32:28um to my knowledge no

32:30other specific [clears throat] documents

32:32at all that are germane to this. So uh

32:35um

32:36>> Would you take a friendly amendment to

32:37add the dates to release the August

32:3929th, 2024 appraisal and September 5th,

32:422024 appraisal or something like that?

32:44>> Yes.

32:46>> Any reason not

32:47to do that? Okay. Sure.

32:49>> I I I don't have any concern with that,

32:52Mayor.

32:52>> And and perhaps is it if it is helpful

32:54just for the sake of clarity, uh, I'll

32:57explain why there are two documents that

32:59there was uh, both documents are

33:01prepared by the same appraisal

33:03appraiser, excuse me. And that based on

33:06the first appraiser, staff had some

33:08questions as well as some feedback in

33:10particular on comparable sales. And on

33:13that basis, the appraiser took that

33:15under advisement and then issued a

33:16second appraisal.

33:18>> Right.

33:19So, yes, so the August 29th and the

33:22revised September 5th appraisals are

33:25what we've been collectively calling the

33:26appraisal because we've been we've had

33:29we've been privy to all of that

33:30information and all of it was

33:32informative in our, um, action. So,

33:35okay, any other friendly amendments? Are

33:37we

33:38good?

33:39All right, let's finish voting.

33:40If you have not voted, please do. And

33:42then the clerk can let us know how we

33:44did.

34:00>> Motion carries, um, 7 to 0.

34:04>> Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

34:06And uh, I had And now that we can

34:08discuss what is going to be out there. I

34:11I don't personally have comments, but I

34:13want to afford any of you who want to

34:15comment on the things we couldn't

34:17comment on before, I invite you to do

34:19that now, but my screen is not back up

34:21to see who's maybe chiming in.

34:25>> [laughter]

34:28>> Okay.

34:31And if not, we can wrap this, but uh

34:34Councilmember Wirtz.

34:36>> Um

34:36>> Was that next, sir?

34:37>> Councilmember Wirtz always going to

34:39speak to the same thing. He and I worked

34:41uh today on a draft of a um

34:44cover memo that we uh probably should

34:47consider uh accompanying the release of

34:49the appraisal in one form or another.

34:51I don't know if

34:53this there aren't copies for

34:55council or

34:58>> We do not have copies at this point, but

35:00we could do so if that'd be helpful.

35:02>> Yeah, I would just uh

35:04I'm I would not advocate that it be

35:06adopted word for word tonight because

35:08people don't have a chance to read it.

35:10Um but maybe we could put it on the

35:11screen and colleagues could uh you don't

35:14have it, Mayor.

35:16Um colleagues could could get a sense of

35:19it and then we could um delegate to the

35:21mayor and uh uh the staff to uh finalize

35:26any wording changes that they wish to

35:28make.

35:50And I'll just while we wait, uh the

35:52thrust of it is uh

35:54really again explaining um

35:57that city went through uh its

36:00appraisals, the district countered with

36:02a $90 million potential value

36:08to interested third parties under

36:10long-term leases and uh further

36:13clarifies that uh the district had

36:17received uh

36:19two expressions of interest from private

36:22schools.

36:23What they did was they um

36:26uh

36:26they looked at the square footage they

36:28had, they um

36:30the

36:32uh revenue that they get per square foot

36:35from an existing private school, and

36:37they extrapolated it for the balance of

36:39the land they had, and

36:42that's how they came up with their $90

36:43million figure. Um

36:46uh and my understanding is that that's

36:50uh their belief that was the potential

36:51high revenue over just a 10-year period.

36:55Um

36:56so if that is the case, um that's an

36:59even stronger argument they had than um

37:03and I think many of us said even

37:05appreciate the time we knew of the

37:07figure, but the the basis for that um

37:11uh I think makes it so that when we

37:15uh ended up with a 60.65 million at 2024

37:20dollars, which is the same year that we

37:22had the appraisals,

37:24um

37:25that is far closer to our bargaining

37:29position

37:30than theirs, and theirs had merit as

37:32well as ours.

37:33So, that's the um the point that I and

37:36we have it on the screen, let folks read

37:38it, but

37:39that's what we want to make sure was

37:41understood and framed it kind of

37:42following on to our earlier comments

37:44that why this was a negotiation of a

37:47price and not one party being able to

37:50dictate take the the terms of a

37:53purchase.

37:55>> All right, thank you. What I would

37:57suggest is that we take a minute or two

37:59and read this,

38:01and then decide if um

38:04we want to do as you suggest, refer it

38:06to staff and to me,

38:08or whether we want to refer it to the ad

38:11hoc to do it if there's more

38:13wordsmithing or not do it if people

38:15don't. But I'm I'm happy to have people

38:17think about that. Council member

38:19Lithcott Hymes, do you want want say

38:20something while we're pondering this, or

38:21do you want to wait?

38:22>> I'll wait.

38:23>> Okay. I'll come back to you just a

38:25moment. So, let's just take a moment or

38:26two to read this.

40:20>> Um

40:22I just my my initial reaction is that um

40:25I appreciate that a lot of it is um

40:30either similar identical or

40:32identical with the

40:34the prior joint statement and the

40:38additional information is I think

40:41primarily in the knowledge of the ad

40:43hoc. So, I know Councilmember Burt, you

40:45were on it and Councilmember Lidcoat

40:46Haines, I believe you are the only two

40:48that are aware of the details of what we

40:50heard from PAUSD at that time.

40:53So, I know Councilmember Lidcoat Haines,

40:55you had rung in, so perhaps you could

40:57address that. I personally

41:00have no reason to doubt it, but no

41:01knowledge of the specifics on that

41:03either.

41:04So, um

41:06>> I'm sorry, Mayor. I wasn't uh

41:08listening.

41:09>> [laughter]

41:09>> Fair enough. Thank you for your candor.

41:12And uh so, you want me to clarify what?

41:14>> Uh just the

41:16one, two, three, fourth uh paragraph uh

41:19where there's a little more detail than

41:21prior.

41:22Or is it that one?

41:23Yeah, about the two private schools. So,

41:26yes. And whatever else you want to say.

41:28>> Well, thank you. I um appreciate

41:32uh Councilmember Rector and

41:33Councilmember Burt's um effort here to

41:36pull this together.

41:37Uh I don't have anything to add about

41:40the two private schools per se or the 10

41:43years. I have no reason to question any

41:45of these things. It's all um consistent

41:47with my memory.

41:49What I do want to say, which is a little

41:51bit more by way of explanation, is

41:54it's important for the public to

41:56appreciate

41:57that the district had a lot of options.

42:00The district had, for example,

42:01potentially two private schools,

42:02potentially others who were interested

42:04in leasing these buildings uh for quite

42:07a large sum of money.

42:09They They have gone elsewhere. They

42:11could have chosen not to work with the

42:13city.

42:14The city didn't have anywhere else to

42:16turn for some additional buildings at

42:17Covely.

42:18We're not thinking about building a

42:20wonderful new community center

42:22elsewhere. This was

42:24um our shot. Will the district agree to

42:28sell its 7 acres of buildings to the

42:30city? So, we were uh quite constrained.

42:33We didn't have other options. We didn't

42:34have a plan B or a plan C in terms of

42:36different parcels.

42:39Um so, given that and given the fact

42:41that the district had

42:43um

42:44a much higher asking price,

42:47um

42:48I am I am proud of us for arriving where

42:50we did.

42:52The other thing I want to say is when

42:54the public releases uh

42:56reads what we have voted just now to

42:59release these two appraisals,

43:01I want folks to be clear that you're

43:02going to see in bold, you know, on the

43:05cover page or page one or two of 90-page

43:08documents, you're going to see the

43:10appraisal value.

43:12And you're going to see numbers that are

43:14higher than what's been released to the

43:15media.

43:16And you're going to say, "Wait, what's

43:18going on?" And here's what's going on.

43:20The city asked the appraisers to

43:23appraise the city's 8 acres.

43:27Came to a total price.

43:28Then we had to divide that price by

43:32eight in order to get the per acre

43:34value.

43:35Then we had to multiply that by seven

43:38because we're trying to purchase only 7

43:41acres.

43:42So, please just keep that in mind.

43:44Pull out your calculators. Do the math.

43:47The numbers add up.

43:49And um

43:52you know, it's been complicated, but I

43:54think

43:55having agreed to release these details

43:57will just give everybody the opportunity

43:59to pour over it all and make good sense

44:01of what turns out, in my view, to have

44:04been a really good deal.

44:08>> Uh

44:09thank you for that and

44:11well said. Uh

44:13I agree with that. It's another reason

44:16that the appraisal is not on its own

44:19dispositive because it was not for the

44:22exact acres that we were looking to buy

44:24and you consider various things, but yet

44:27when you look at that range I'm pretty

44:29proud of us, too.

44:31Um I think that and I'm proud of the

44:33school district for wanting to seek to

44:35do something together with us that was

44:38fair and good and to the benefit of the

44:41entire community. We know we have not

44:44identical, but largely overlapping

44:46jurisdictions.

44:48That this was a way to serve both their

44:50constituents and ours and that they

44:53wanted to do this with us instead of

44:55making potentially 50% more

44:58by going to private school. They They

45:01held hands with us to go do something

45:03that the community had asked us to do.

45:06And

45:07so thus we were able to

45:10achieve a price that was at the lower

45:12end of the negotiating spectrum and

45:14within the range of the appraisals that

45:17we had. So

45:19and looking at this further,

45:21I'm fine with the idea that it be

45:25just finalized with staff. I'm happy to

45:28facilitate that, but I'm happy to hear

45:29from anyone else on their thoughts about

45:32that suggestion.

45:34I guess I should ask is there anyone who

45:35either wants to comment or has any

45:37dissent from that suggestion? Because I

45:39do appreciate that that you did spell

45:41that out Council members Burton-Rectall

45:43in this cover note.

45:48>> Oh, your light's on, but not this one.

45:50Okay.

45:52>> But but not for that. I don't have a

45:53disagreement. I'm in agreement that we

45:55should put this out. I just had another

45:56comment.

45:57>> Okay. Sorry, it it doesn't show up when

45:59you have your light on. Please go ahead,

46:01Council Verlaque.

46:04>> I just wanted to add one point to what

46:06Councilman Lefkowitz Hames said, all of

46:09which was completely true. Um the point

46:12that I want to make is that we

46:14in spite of the fact that this was

46:15unique and we didn't really have another

46:17We don't have another option.

46:20I really want to underscore the fact

46:21that we would not have done this at what

46:23we would have considered a wrong price.

46:26Um I can't speak for close sessions, but

46:28I can say that we never had a vote 7 to

46:311 or 3 to 4 or anything like that that,

46:33you know, we should go with 90 million.

46:35So, there are a number of price points

46:37at which we would not be doing this if

46:38we didn't thoroughly believe in the the

46:41relative value for both both sides. And

46:45um I really appreciate the the mayor

46:46noting that this did take both sides and

46:49that the school district really

46:51cooperated um to to to get us where we

46:54are.

46:55Uh and that team effort for the city is

46:58something I hope is always remembered

47:01about this whole process that we went

47:03through.

47:04Thanks.

47:05>> Well said and hopefully we can continue

47:07that cooperation going forward. Um

47:09Councilman Rexton.

47:12>> Yeah, I want to echo that. The school

47:13district could have

47:15gone elsewhere, shopped around. The

47:17school Two private schools came to them.

47:20They could have shopped this around and

47:21really tried to squeeze us and they

47:23didn't. So, we appreciate that. Um

47:25I mentioned that I dug through the

47:28uh

47:28the appraisals.

47:31And they did a really good job. On page

47:3369 of the first appraisal and page 66 of

47:36the second appraisal, they show all

47:37their comps.

47:38And the comps start at 303 and then go

47:41down to 213 and then

47:43this is a dollars per square foot.

47:46Uh

47:47and even below that they have some

47:48comps. They consider those inferior

47:51comps. And so, there are comps in there

47:53that are cheaper than what we're paying.

47:55But they don't consider them of be same

47:57quality as Cabrillo. You know, I think

47:59that's important. That we do have a wide

48:00variety of costs, and that adds a lot of

48:02uncertainty, but also the lower end ones

48:05are not the same quality as Cabrillo.

48:08Uh another thing is these appraisals are

48:09just talking about uh the price of the

48:13land. So, in fact, they take the price

48:15that they think the land is worth, and

48:17they subtract off 800K for demolition.

48:20We're not going to pay that. So,

48:21actually, they're kind of undercutting

48:23what the real price is.

48:25And they also don't include the

48:27uh value of the buildings. They assume

48:29the buildings are going to be knocked

48:30down. And those values, they have value

48:33to us. We're going to be saving 5, 10

48:35million dollars because remodeling is so

48:37much cheaper than building from the

48:38ground up.

48:40So, both those are not included in the

48:42appraisals. So, that's another thing

48:43we're getting more value than the

48:44appraisals are showing.

48:46And finally, as the other council

48:48members have said, you know, these 7

48:50acres

48:51aren't just 7 acres. They're 7 acres

48:53right next to our 8 acres. And that

48:55makes them more valuable to us. We could

48:56find 7 acres for a cheaper price down

48:58the street. I don't think we'd want it

49:00because having that in one location

49:03gives us so many more options to have a

49:04better quality community center. Makes

49:07it cheaper for us to run, but also

49:09better for community. So, I think having

49:12contiguous land is really important.

49:14Thank you.

49:16>> Thank you.

49:18Anyone else with any final thoughts

49:20before we close out this item?

49:25Well, seeing none, uh thank you all for

49:27coming in for this special meeting. Uh

49:29thank you, staff, for coming in for this

49:30special meeting. And I really appreciate

49:33this conversation. And we are adjourned.