After the Board of Estimates meeting, one person said the meeting reminded him of this. I thought I might have some fun with it. Final
But first, check out these photos . . .the first is a new rendering from Hammes, the second and third are CAD drawings by John Martens of what the Edgewater will look like compared to what it looks like now . . .
The original document is here.
GETTING STARTED
Tim Bruer called the meeting to order about 5 minutes late as everyone was there except Mayor Dave Cieslewicz. The Mayor wandered in late.
Bruer says that if people are there to discuss the TIF, it will be referred to a special Board of Estimates meeting. [He doesn’t indicate when that meeting might be. Perhaps on the 24th? What galls me is that I had started hearing on Friday that this would be postponed and the agenda doesn’t usually come out until after noon – why didn’t they just tell the public that up front? They had time. Several people had heard that it would be referred and chose not to come, but I believe several others weren’t in the loop, but left after that announcement. Why waste people’s time like that. I think it shows disrespect for the public.]
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Unlike nearly every other city committee and the council, the Board of Estimates took all their testimony at once. Usually, the Mayor asks if people want to speak in the beginning or just wait til the item comes up, that wasn’t offered on this occasion. If the speakers can wait, which most of them did, it is usually better to take the testimony closer to the time the item is discussed, unless, of course, you want it to have less impact, then you’d do it further away from the discussion. So, this testimony is on several different items. Also, people were talking alot and the people at the table were talking more softly than usual, so the testimony isn’t as thorough as usual.
General Budget
Tom Consine (sp?), city property owner for 60 years on far west side, was on the city council for four years in 1965 – 1969, Soglin sat behind him, he was on Board of Estimates for 3 of 4 years he was on council, voted against the budget 3 of 4 years.
– Concerned about state’s arrogant attitude about the non-payment of taxes.
– Thinks they should cut improvements for Peace Park, State St. gets too much tax payer dollars.
– Take longer to pay for Central park or not do it, we already have 6 parks from Butler out – Giddings, Reynolds, Orton, Tenney, James Madison and Breese.
– Mayor in office for 7 years this falls on his shoulder, the bus driver contract is out of whack.
Mayor interrupts him and tells him that he needs to speak to something on the agenda. He seemed rather rude about it.
Speaker explains that he came to the council in January to speak to the council about budget issues, but was told to come to Board of Estimates.
He continues and says that he supports the Edgewater rebuild, city tax payers will benefit as will downtown businesses. Larger interests must prevail not hte narrow, but legitimate concerns of the near neighbors.
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Frank Staniszewski representing Madison Development Corporation
– Some sections are good, would like to preserve the preference for non-profits, should be strengthened.
– Wishes to speak in opposition to 4(c) operating expenses – not wise use of funds, not aid preservation of the fund and not a good change.
Curt Brink, Chair of the Affordability Subcommittee of the Housing Committee
– Basically they are changing the way the trust fund is used. We’ve got $4M in trust fund, purpose of the rewrite is to get the $4M out and being used.
– Against using it for operating funds.
– Some have said operating funds could be paid by by increased rents.
– Other issue is that non-profits have a priority until October 1st.
[If you watched from home and heard a loud banging noise, that was me, banging my head against the wall. I have explained, repeatedly that this is not to be used for general operating funds but ONLY for operating expenses tied to a downpayment loan program or a PMI guarantee fund. Because if we have money to loan or we need to check people’s qualifications for the PMI guarantee fund, who is going to give the money out or check their qualifications without getting paid? City staff made it clear they could not do it. I’ve been saying this for two years, I swear, no one is listening! Loyal readers, how many times have I mentioned this here?
1965 Edgewater Ordinance
Peter Ostlind – In opposition.
– This shouldn’t apply only to land adjacent to right of way. Should apply to all land along street end cuz no other way to protect the view.
– The intent of the original ordinance should be honored.
– The right of way was exchanged for something we never got, part of this proposal gets us part of what we should have gotten already.
– This privatizes the lake view as an private asset to be sold as hotel rooms.
Fred Mohs – In opposition.
– Not happy with current proposal, plenty of room to do it right on the National Guardian Life (NGL property).
– He was there to negotiate the 1965 vacation ordinance, clear what it intended.
– Current 70s addition built too tall so they could accommodate the ballroom.
– This project builds on top of the 70s addition significantly, that was never intended, the 70s addition should have been built to preserve the view.
– 10 foot setback was for a little building. It really should be beyond the current structure.
– Parking is still an issue with the project, it is desperately short.
– Urge you to re-energize conversation with NGL and get more real estate for the project.
John Martens – In opposition.
– Has handouts with pictures above.
– 1965 ordinance was made for a reason.
– 1965 political reality felt it was no big deal to give away public land but at least foresight to preserve what is historically an important view of the lake.
– “Permanent” is the word in the ordinance, permanent should be permanent. The credibility of the city would be in question if the ordinance is revised.
– He says the gain by reducing the height is pretty much taken up by the encroachment on the Wis Ave setback.
– It is structurally feasible to move the tower relative to the podium, there are 4 column lines, the building is built above the first three, from a structural standpoint, could take up the last three, no structural reason to keep it in the position it is in.
Ledell Zellers – In opposition.
– Concerned about the lake view and doing away with the setback.
– They were required to make the rooftop available to the public and access to lake without cost to the city. Faulkner’s didn’t do that in good faith, it adds insult to the injury that this ordinance amendment allows owner to get TIF to provide lake access already promised to be provided at no cost to the city.
– She reads form 1972 article where they talked about the rooftop having entertainment, a promendade and observational seating.
– To pay for what we already paid for is outrageous and now they have a right to close the public space off for private events.
– To claims that Edgewater pays back the TIF is not the case, University Square does.
– If the TIF district were closed, the excess money could go back to the taxing entities, especially the school district.
– This project provides a questionable benefit to public, but a clear benefit to private hotel.
– The access to the lake is a slot between two private building to a narrow lakefront path when we have miles of lakefront to enjoy at James Madison Park, the Memorial Union and Picnic Point.
– We houldn’t pay for what was required in 1965 with funds now.
– Predictability is what developers say they want, residents want predictability too.
– To change this ordinance is a betrayal of the citizens of Madison.
Paul Shoenenman – In opposition.
– Doesn’t think he’ll ever own lakefront property or live in a condo, that is why we have the setbacks and right of way agreements, for the common good, so people don’t need to own lakefront property, that is why we have protections of public lands.
– We shouldn’t pay $16 M to buy back what was promised in 1965 and 1970.
– How can we deny the next developer along Langdon or Wisconsin Avenue who wants to develop to the sidewalk? We will face a line of buildings up Wisconsin Ave in what was a grand boulevard all the way back to the Olin design.
– Wisconsin Avenue and Martin Luther King are what is left of our grand boulevards.
– Thought we were no longer giving TIF to build condos.
– I missed the rest, my notes say “. . . people if you want to read what I write, stop talking to me . . . ” 🙂
[Note, no one from the Hammes Company has shown up to advocate for laws being changed for their project. They haven’t even showed up to the meetings. They are letting others do their dirty work for them. That’s kind of unsettling to me.]
[What is interesting to me, is that of the 5 speakers, only two live in the immediate area. One lives in Bassett, one lives in the Tenney Neighborhood and the other lives in Larry Palm’s district. So much for the handful of NIMBY neighbors argument. I also happen to know that others were there from Satya Rhodes-Conway’s District as well as others from Verveer’s and Maniaci’s district.
TIF for Edgewater
Speakers went home or did not speak.
QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS
Mark Clear asks John Martens about what the exact location of the perspective of his CAD drawings are?
Martens says it is 284 feet from Langdon St approximately in the middle, slightly to the left, at high point of Wisconsin Avenue. It is at the perspective of a person 5 feet to eye level and taken with a special lense. Essentially, he re-describes this:
This view is what a normal human would see: viewed from 5’-0 above Wisconsin Avenue at its high point, 280’ from the Langdon Street sidewalk (75’-0 datum height). A 34 mm focal length lens (similar to human vision) is utilized, and vertical perspective has been corrected, as in the rendering above. Shadows are cast by the sun at 12:00 noon DST, June 21.
He explains that there is a vanishing point that causes high point to recede, but brain translates it. [And I’m certain I didn’t understand the rest of the techno babble.]
Clear asks if he had access to the CAD drawings.
Martens says no, wishes he did.
Clear asks how his drawings can then be “highly accurate” then? How did you get the dimensions of the buildings.
Martens says that he imported the PDFs into his CAD program Vector Works 2010, that program “can snap two intersections”, and then he “traced over” the PDFs and with that method it would be extremely accurate retracing and then expanded elevations from the drawings, he says that is a duplication of what they have. He says the one issue is with the new tower, he to guess on the new section because there are no PDFs of the floor plans of that. [I hope I didn’t butcher that too badly.
ITEMS 1 – 3
Bruer makes a motion, Clear seconds, Mayor announces what the items are and . . . let the performance begin.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Rhodes-Conway: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Those items are adopted without debate.
ITEM 4, APPOINTING NEW CITY ENGINEER: DUET BY SATYA RHODES-CONWAY AND ROB PHILLIPS, CITY ENGINEER
Rob Philips says he welcomes the opportunity to take next step in his career, working with engineering for 21 years and deputy for 10 years, looking forward to upcoming challenges and fortunate cuz predecessor left engineering division in good condition. Awful lot of new challenges to face such as storm water 40% sediment removal by 2013, only 30% right now, a number of priorities in street and infrastructure, particularly arterial streets. They’ve taken great strides in the last few years but more work to do. Looks forward to the challenges and working with Mayor and city council and citizens as has for 21 years.
Rhodes-Conway asks about storm water issue, not just specific goals, but more broadly in regards to the on-going discussion on water quality, infiltration and the lakes. What are your goals and specifically are there new tools or other communities we can learn from, how are you and dept looking to learn new ways to deal with it?
Phillips says they have a capable and knowledgeable staff, especially Greg Fries. He says the first goal is to meet 2013 goal of 40% and that is where emphasis has to be, we get other benefits from doing that as far as quality – such as phosphorus removal. They are installing green gardens for infiltration in a number of areas, not all projects and roadways would lend themselves to infiltration due to contaminants in the water, but increasing that where they can, especially on residential streets that are not heavily salted. Green roof on Engineering service building, pricey but excellent on reducing run off and benefits for building itself, reduce heating and cooling loads. Constantly monitoring upcoming changes in technologies, staff goes to seminars and those types of things, will be more that comes out, doing more studies, doing innovative things in beach water quality, working with UW and other folks on 3 projects that will be interesting to see how that ends up.
Rhodes-Conway asks a broader question – Mr. Nelson left big shoes, how do you anticipate taking the department forward?
Phillips says what Nelson did and Engineering did over the years was constantly changing, can’t take that forward and not change, it is constantly evolving and always have been, to keep things the same would not be business as usual. We are always looking for new ideas. Staff always suggesting how to improve and using old ways in different ways as well. Constantly changing and if stop doing that not moving forward.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Motion passes unanimously.
ITEMS 12, 5, 6, 7 & 8
Bruer makes motions, Clear seconds, Mayor announces what the items are and . . . let the performance continue.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Rhodes-Conway: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Those items are adopted without debate.
ITEM 9, POLICE TRAINING FACILITY: ESSENTIALLY A SATYA RHODES-CONWAY SOLO WITH ACCOMPANIMENT
Rhodes-Conway asks a question which I missed.
The Mayor calls up Captain Davenport, another officer (Sue Williams?) and Joel Plant, Don Marx and Joe Stepnik.
Davenport says they looked at several sites, this offers the best of everthing, one of things they wanted was training facility – narrowed focus to this property in the process, asked staff to put together multiple phase plan to see what they could do – too hard to hear, too much talking, his voice is surprisingly soft.
Rhodes-Conway asks how big the current building is.
Marx or Stepnik says that currently there is 8,000 sq feet of office space and 22,000 square feet of warehouse
They conclude there are plenty of options on how to use the space.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
[Do you think its fair that everyone gets paid the same regardless of how much effort they put in. Clearly, some people read the info, ask questions and generally pay more attention.]
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Rhodes-Conway: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
ITEM 14: BREWD, RHODES-CONWAY AND MATT MIKOLAJEWSKI DUET
Rhodes-Conway asks why it hasn’t been working and why not utilized and what changes?
Matt Mikolajewski says that it was a loan program and had a cap of $100,000 and that was not enough of an incentive as was needed to move property owners forward to take advantage. They changed it from a loan to a grant program, no cap in the guidelines. [Yeah, no one wants our money unless we are giving it away, perhaps that should be some kind of a sign.]
Rhodes-Conway asks if they have an idea of what would be eligible.
Mikolajewski says a few years ago they looked at all the properties and can’t remember how many existed, many are petroleum based contaminants, they wouldn’t qualify for BREWD.
Rhodes-Conway asks about if petroleum always get that assistance from the state and wouldn’t need this money.
Mikolajewski says not always.
Rhodes-Conway asks if these changes will get people access to the funds.
Mikolajewski says that most of the negative feedback was about it being a loan and that there is not enough incentive for it.
Rhodes-Conway asks if some will apply now?
Mikolajewski says yes. He says that as they are discussing revisions there has been increased interest.
Rhodes-Conway asks how they publicize the program?
Mikolajewski says they have info on website, business section of website, sort of get word out to developers and brokers, no staff resources to do more.
Rhodes-Conway says that it might be useful to remind council the programs exist so as they have people approach about properties in their district they can let people know. Another point of contact to get the word out.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
ITEM 15: A CLEARER ORDINANCE ON ASSESSMENTS A.K.A. BENEFITING BUSINESS PARKS , ENCORE PERFORMANCE OF DUET BY RHODES-CONWAY AND ROB PHILLIPS
Rhodes-Conway asks what is more clear and how is it clearer?
Phillips says that ordinance is hard to tell cuz stretched out, the way the ordinance was organized, a lot of semi-colons, this is more outline format and other changes in here are that exemption on industrial lands 10 acres or greater are deleted, but employment centers are added, continues to allow that deferment for business parks.
Rhodes-Conway asks a question about agriculture land and Phillips answers but again, missed it do to talking.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
ITEM 16, MONEY FOR MADISUN: JED SANBORN SOLO
Sanborn says that can’t vote for it, think about $431,000 in fed money with deficits that boggle the mind, city pays another $250,000 to get people to use solar energy where already have all kinds of subsidies to have inefficient power. There will be a full time position for two years, what happens after grant funds run out. We should says “no thank you”.
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Rhodes-Conway: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate. Sanborn votes no.
[Happy to see someone alive besides Rhodes-Conway]
ITEM 17 AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND – CHAOTIC RAMBLING BY PEOPLE WHO DON”T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT – MUST BE INTERMISSION
[It would have been helpful if the absentee Alder who is the sponsor would have been here.
Clear moves approval minus the changes in 4(c). I wonder if he is saying he doesn’t want to do the downpayment program or PMI program for homeowners. At this point, I don’t care, Rhodes-Conway takes the discussion in a much better direction and no one really wants to use the trust fund for operating costs. It was just proposed to help with homeownership.]
Rhodes-Conway asks Bill Clingan,Community Development Director and Curt Brink if its correct that they Affordability Committee hasn’t seen this version yet?
Brink says yes, Michael May says old one is technicality – they committee went line by line and got up to date, and this is based on discussion committee had. Asked staff to keep original and strikeout and underline, will go to Housing Committee and CDBG.
Rhodes-Conway asks them to describe the number of changes – at overview level, what is the cumulative effect of the change and why are they needed?
Brink says it is so the CDBG staff can get the money out, the way it was set up had to get to $10M before they could give grants and lend out more of the money. The fund is capped at $4M and there is no money coming in. They came together to enhance other programs that were out there. Looked at income levels, etc, but just want to get the money out.
Clingan says that already spent 2010 amount. Based on 25% of what came in 2009 its only $15,000. But sitting on 4.1M. [Well, that’s because this Mayor stopped adding any money to the fund so all there is is interest and payments made to return the money.]
Rhodes-Conway clarifies the preference for non-profits, 50% reserved until Oct 1 for non-profits. That right?
Clingan said something I didn’t hear.
Rhodes-Conway clarifies that in any given year, all funds could be used?
Brink says yes, but no more than 25% to any one person, minimum of 4 projects, Up to council, but if dramatic enough they might decide something different, no more than 25% to one?
Rhodes-Conway asks if they discussed wanting a lower cap on funds to lower money generated?
Brink says that they didn’t want it all sucked up by one project right away, it prevents everyone from getting application in right away.
Rhodes-Conway asks if there is a structure in degrees of affordability?
Brink says that difference in rental and buying something, credit score is the issue at this point, sometimes below 80 can’t get credit score. WHEDA may change this. Some at 60% tried to go through it and bump some up a little higher but doesn’t prevent it from being lower, if don’t have higher cap nothing kicks out.
[They took out language that had an incentive of $15K extra per unit to reach lower income levels.]
Rhodes-Conway we don’t need to help people like her at 80% AMI to buy a home, there are a lot of people out there that need help to get housing so how prioritize and ensure that extreme needs that are out there get to use the money and not to folks like myself that could maybe use a hand .
Brink says a limit in there – within Madison when going through affordability index, could be downpayement assistance can get into anything but a condo. Talks more but I miss it. [I can’t help point out that downpayment assistance won’t happen without operating funds . . . .]
Rhodes-Conway appreciates using the funds, asks when comes to Housing Committee and CDBG could they have a discussion about prioritizing really low income housing, maybe rental not homeowners. Maybe the priorities for non-profits and low income housing over 80% so don’t have 4 projects get $1M that help people at 80% AMI.
Brink says could be used for rehab, stability of schools would be helped and when money goes to periphery and build new, this can help someone get in a house, no money for improvements, help them with rehab. No flexibility before, brings families into neighborhoods. Talks about neighborhoods and affordability. [???}
Rhodes-Conway appreciates considering transportation and energy costs – she jsut wants to make sure we do not leave the least of us behind.
Clingan asks if she has a preference or cap in mind.
Rhodes-Conway says she just want to know discussion is happening and if committee feels it isn’t important like to know why. Wants to make sure that she had constituents at low AMI and they need help, more than folks like myself.
Brink says that that it could be a [???]
Mayor asks about 4(a) and says it takes away discussion from city council. He says with the current ordinance, council could spend any amount by own vote and this limits the council authority.[That’s just crazy, the council violates its own laws all the time, why is he worried now?]
Lots of talking simultaneously.
Brink says that $400,000 for the section 8 issue was a special amendment and they could do that again.
Michael May says that was the intent, by setting 25% that was the intent, if council rally wanted to do it amend again they could.
Mayor wants more flexibility.
Bruer asks what language city attorney would add?
May says to add back in the clause that says “Unless authorized by a vote of the Common Council.”
Amendment is friendly.
Rhodes-Conway says she finds it hard believe we would spend more than more than 25% in one area, that concentrates instead of spreading it out. Council can overturn it, someone could come in and say they want $4M and then we have to wrestle with it. Feels like important – inappropriate to have 4 projects at $1 in one year – hope don’t find ourselves in that position – allow funds to be spread out.
Mayor says he has the same general concern, could eliminate the trust fund in one year.
Clear says keeping the language, indicates intent of not more than 25%
Rhodes-Conway asks about 4(c) operating expenses – only for capital costs – so if this draft came out of committee what was the discussion?
Brink says he was always against it, must have been absent when it was discussed. [Ahem. I guess when you have gray hair you can act confused and no one will question it! 🙂 Oh, wait! He recovers a bit!] He says PMI insurance needs some discussion that, people don’t have 20% down, not sure if we can change that. To get someone into the house, becomes a loan.
Rhodes-Conway asks if staff discussed it?
Clingan says they were waiting for CDBG to discuss – staff had informal thoughts, heard the con argument, no pro argument. Clingan says always operating expenses, think what colleague said is we don’t get the money back, hard to be part of the loan. On the CDBG and HUD side, $100,000 for a project and then do a contract, build in operating costs, that is fed dollars so easier. There are city levy dollars – if we use the fund, then it s gone.
Rhodes-Conway says that issue in management of affordable housing, esp. at lowest income levels. It takes tremendous support for them to be successful, so don’t think want to use the money for operating expenses without limits but maybe some concern about coordination and leveraging of dollars with other dollars to ensure success of residents. Not moving a change, but at committees, still have the discussion about what the arguments were for and against.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: A peep or two
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: A peep
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
I must have missed item 18, now I was talking
ITEM 19 – 1965 EDGEWATER ORDINANCE: ANOTHER RHODES-CONWAY PERFORMANCE PIECE
I missed the beginning, I was filling Clingan in on what the langauge about operating costs was intended to do.
Anne Zellhoefer is explaining that the amendments to the ordinance if they make them would likely be recorded in the sales documents.
Rhodes-Conway asks if we have info on what we were promised when vacated property and haven’t gotten that? She says it is concerning, seems like entering that situation again, what guarantees do we have? Is there a usage agreement or written document if city funding for construction we will get what we asked for, or just same situation again and a future council will say this again.
Zellhofer says that Section 14 that the city needed to certify that it has been met in full, 1974 we certified.
Rhodes-Conway says so its our fault?
Zellhoefer says she is not sure why it was found satisfactory, TIF agreement and letter of conditions will require certain uses be in use and maintenance and use agreement.
Rhodes-Conway asks about the map – she says it looks like the existing conditions is the vacated portion and the unvacated portion is where the driveway will be – so what is the difference there in terms of our control, we still have control over the right of way – that’s not changing, even with the new driveway?
Zellhofer says nothing changes with this agreement, may be subterranean agreement about parking below.
Rhodes-Conway asks when vacated the property, we gave up ownership except these 14 conditions, Right?
I think Zellhofer agrees that we retain the right of way.
Rhodes-Conway asks about the schedule for the existing district – it’s not in a TIF district. Where is it in the life cycle? What are the pay back obligations? When would we close it and what impact if closed?
Clear says point of order, what is the relevance? [Wow, he jumped all over that! There really was a desire to not talk about TIF at all, despite the fact that the 1965 ordinance is being changed to allow TIF funding. I wonder what he was so afraid of?]
Rhodes-Conway explains relevance is this ordinance change allows TIF to be spent on the project.
Brasser offers to answer it. He says that TID 32, because of successful of University Square and others has a substantial increment above costs. $1.5M per year, so while costs associated with State St redevelopment and the debt to be repaid from past work are being spent, they expect to recover current costs within a few years, based on how going so far. Anything that is discussed, all of that is in addition to what is already there.
Joe Clausius asks about 12 – says he sells condo insurance and major bone of contention is maintenance assessment of condos, maintenance issues not in condo association according to this ordinance. Can they not impact the walkway, landscape etc that is up to the developer, no part of the condo?
Zellhoefer says “likely no”, understanding of the units is that they would be upper level units.
Clausius says he thinks it will work ok.
Judy Compton says that listening to Joe’s question and chime in, when own condo own part of common element, sidewalks, etc, most of the time own the common area. This would be different.
Rhodes-Conway asks for separation of the three changes.
They take up Section 12 – allowing condos first.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Rhodes-Conway: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
Next they take up Section 8 & 10 – 10 foot setback and allowing TIF assistance for the project.
Rhodes-Conway says she can’t vote for change in section 8, inappropriate to pay for something we should have gotten decades ago, and very frustrating, that we are being asked to. Section 10 change, understand is probably for those most impacted, the most important, doesn’t feel as strongly about it, because of presentation on the project, there is the discussion of setback in the PUD discussion and lots of rules that already apply. But important for folks and can’t for section 8 change.
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without further debate. Rhodes-Conway votes no.
ITEM 20: THE FINAL MOVEMENT:
20 – They refer the TIF to “a special Board of Estimates or the next regular meeting”
Sanborn: Silence
Clear: Silence
Clausius: Silence
Bruer: Silence
Rhodes-Conway: Silence
Verveer: At Mardi Gras
Passes without debate.
THE END
Even tho we got done and I was home by 6:30, I didn’t work on this post last night. I took the night off, because I have to work all next weekend (board retreat and volunteer training) so I knew I’d have some hours to work on this at work, since it will be a 50 hour work week for me, even with the extra hours I take off. And I still have 5 days to take off by the end of March or lose . . . so, sorry for being a slacker today.
