CETA discussed several paths for the Memorial Building — from structured sale with development covenants to demolition if no viable buyer appears — and asked staff to return with a concrete proposal for the board’s regular session.

The issue is time-sensitive because the building has been used recently as a warming site but staff said it is no longer suitable for that purpose and is in poor physical condition.

Neil, a CETA staff member, described the building’s condition bluntly: “That building is not long for this earth. I mean, it is falling apart as we have folks in there.” He told the board the structure required repeated repairs this year just to remain usable as a warming site and warned that maintaining it as-is would continue to cost the agency money.

Board members weighed three basic options: 1) list the building for sale at a highly favorable price with binding covenants and a relatively short timeline for redevelopment, 2) require a structural/environmental analysis and then market the property to buyers for full due diligence, or 3) demolish the structure and either hold the lot as clean parking or prepare it for future redevelopment if no buyer emerges.

Questions from board members covered liability and standards for sale. Staff noted CETA’s past practice of doing a Phase I environmental assessment at acquisition, and board members observed that a Phase I does not typically include lead or asbestos testing, which would require additional study. One board member argued for a short market test (nine months to one year) and said if no credible redevelopment interest appears within that time the board should proceed to demolition.

Mayor Van Gordon suggested an aggressive option: “We sell the building for a dollar. It’s off our table,” a comment offered as a way to quickly transfer redevelopment responsibility while using covenants to control outcomes. Several members proposed a small subcommittee to draft sale conditions and covenants to return to the full board for approval.

No formal sale, demolition or other binding action was adopted at the retreat. Staff were directed to prepare a proposal for the regular board meeting that will lay out a recommended timeline, options for a Phase I or additional hazardous‑materials studies, and proposed covenants or sale terms for board consideration.