Cynics who dismiss Spokane City Council meetings as mere political theater would have been pleasantly surprised Monday when the weekly agenda got around to the controversial YMCA purchase.

Members were at their thoughtful and attentive best, and it was evident that individual opinions were undergoing revision and refinement, even as the dialogue unfolded. In the end, the council reached a pragmatic decision that might be the best to hope for, given the unsatisfactory options available because of an impulsive Park Board action three years ago.

At issue was whether to accept $4.3 million in Conservation Futures money, offered by Spokane County to repay what the city borrowed from one of its own funds to acquire the vacated Y property. As a condition, the county set a timetable for demolition of the building that occupies the nearly one-acre site on the south bank of the Spokane River.

Yes, the council decided, it would accept the offer – if only to keep it open – but first the city will try to interest a private developer in taking over the site and refurbishing the building as a commercial or residential enterprise rather than tearing it down at a cost of $800,000 or more. If that strategy works, the county can keep its money for worthier land acquisitions.

One by one, council members explained themselves. Richard Rush led off, followed by his ideological opposite, Al French, both articulating well-reasoned arguments for opposing the use of Conservation Futures funds. Council newcomer Jon Snyder added his own detailed thoughts, and seasoned Councilman Steve Corker noted that while he shared many of the others’ concerns, they were trumped by the city’s inability to absorb the $4.3 million out of its ailing general fund.

The idea of keeping the door open for private development arose as a last-minute amendment, inspired in part by public testimony by Spokane developer Ron Wells.

Now, ironically, the city is hoping for an offer not unlike the one that was on the table in 2006 when the Park Board committed itself to buy the property and make it a natural area rather than let it be developed.

In his comments Monday, Councilman Rush noted more than once that he felt the city Parks Department had previously shown little sincere interest in exploring development options for the land. Now that the council has reached a consensus and called for a request for proposals on the property, the Parks Department needs to respond with stepped-up conviction – and the council needs to insist on it.