Well, I’ll try . . . can’t promise much! Worse typos than usual, so you have been warned. Audio being added so you can hear for yourself what I typed very quickly. (Poor – sorry about that, a setting moved on me I didn’t notice, audio jack on my recorder no longer works to monitor it. 🙁 )
Roll Call – Lisa Subeck (excused), Lucas Daley and Paul Skidmore missing. They all eventually show up.
Item 1 – passes on voice vote with no debate
Item 2 – passes on voice vote with no debate
Recess til 6:45
Schmidt says that due to the weather they are giving people more time to get to the council meeting. Council agrees.
Consent Agenda
The pass the consent agenda as blogged here.
They also refer item 81, Anchor Bank TIF.
They separate items 17, 32, 36 and 72. They don’t take up item 44. Cheeks separates 14. They re-order items to 36 (body cameras), 32, 72 (BRT study) and 17 (billboards)
Item 14 – Allied shuttle to grocery
Maurice Cheeks moves to delete the mayor upon advice of the city attorney’s office because it is more efficient and it doesn’t need to go through the whole process. Amendment passes. Motion passes.
Public hearings
#3 – Union Corners, developer shows up in support, available to answer questions, no one else appears, they move to adopt with conditions. Clear says that he was excited about Union Corners moving forward – only it was much more awkward than that. Rummel says the first phase was the clinic which will happen in the spring and this is the second phase that has a section 42 tax credit program so keep your fingers crossed. Mayor says something I didn’t hear.
#4 – Hop Cat – motion is grant with conditions, 3 lobbyists here in support, no discussion. Passes.
#5 – #11 Motion is to grant, no registrations. # 12 has 2 lobbyists registered. They move items 5 – 12 and passes without discussion.
#36 – Body Cameras
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff moves a substitute and adds the word “each” to the line that has 4 people appointed.
On registration, Cristina Lor, opposing and wishing to speak. She opposes the study because she opposes footage camera, Eric Gardner was tapes and there was no justice served, we need to hold the police accountable. We shouldn’t persecute children because they have to choose between a rock and a hard place. Body cams aren’t a solution, spending $30,000 won’t get to the root cause. There are communities that need these funds and it is better spent investing in the communities, the children on Allied that don’t have resources. She grew up on Allied and investing in the children would be a better investment, we should empower our citizens to speak up. She knows alot of people that oppose it and there is only one person speaking out tonight, we should have better dialogues with the communities, this isn’t a solution to anything and this is a waste of $30,000.
Mo Cheeks asks the speaker about understanding the lives of the neighborhood and that this won’t be a solution. The council already took and initiative to move forward with the study and the will of the community is to better understand what they can do. Noting that, do you believe that if we emphasize the importance to talking to people directly, could there be value in the study. She says she attended the police forum last night and after raising her hand for 45 minutes, I had a simple question, but I was livid at the end because I was silenced, I blew up and was emotionally charged, but seeing the interaction of Chief Koval and his interaction with the black homeless men, less than 10% of people were people of color and 60% stormed out because they were mad. WE are missing the voices of people who don’t have an opportunity. At the end the Chief just walked out, the people who talked afterwards were flabbergasted, that is the gentleman who is training our officers. I don’t know what communities you might be involved in, she has been to the Allied Drive Task Force, She has been introduce to Cheeks a couple times, but you don’t know my name. There is me and one other person who is there and does not speak and we are not recognized, I don’t know what kind of community engagement you do. She thinks they need to address the concerns about why we need the cams in the first place, we should address the problem of why we are going to this solution. She says democracy only works if people are educated. She says that kids in Allied need money for clothing, because they only have $49 for clothing and school supplies, what kind of education will they be getting. She says that standing up there is very daunting and she doesn’t think that you are included in the community the way you want to be. She says that she lived in 13 neighborhoods, moved 8 times last year, has 4 jobs because my brother is homeless and unemployed and my siblings are still struggling and she helps them, those are the communities she lives in, the ones where families are living in subsidized housing for 40 years and not moving up the social ladder. The ones that are on the ground, and still on the ground after decades of being in this community, in your community. She doesn’t think body cams or $30,000 is going to do anything to those communities. And yesterday the only person who wanted body cams was a white woman talking about Nakoma and Maple Bluff. You already own a home if you sell it, that could provide housing for a whole lot more people. She doesn’t know what communities you are talking about, but those are not the communities that I have been exposed to growing up. That she is exposed to right now.
Shiva Bidar thanks her for speaking, she appreciates young activism. She says that this is not an implementation of body cams, it is a step back from where they were. This isn’t a pilot, but to discuss them, this is the tip of the iceberg. This is a solution that is easy to look at, this is about what kind of policing we want in our community and if body cams should be included or not. This is to talk to people in the communities that Cristina was talking about. This is about if body cameras fit somewhere in accountability for the department. This process will not be led by the police department. She is not willing to sweep this under the rug and not have the conversation, she thinks it is an opportunity to have the discussion about issues in the community. She wants to publicly apologize about the timeline and skipping the Equal Opportunities Commission and Public Safety Committee, but they need to get this done before the budget, this is already a short timeline.
Larry Palm says he is voting against it because it did not go through EOC.
Motion passes on voice vote.
#32 – Judge Doyle Square
Denise DeMarb makes an amendment to the substitute. It is at the desks. On letter i. she strikes language and insert “Development teams should provide the city with options on block 88 and/or 105 for 70 – 140,000 square feet of City office space or another future use as part of the response. To the extent that a hotel building is cited on Block 88 with the additional use option, the mass of the hotel development should be located closer to E. Wilson and S. Pinckney Streets. (i.e. it should be away from E. Doty)
She says that they spent over 2 hours talking about the RFP and there were some questions on the office space and city use and she is hoping that the amendment will clarify that some. The city is not ready to say it will be city office space and this leaves it open for the developer to come up with the best possible use.
Mayor says that a few alders asked how he felt, he is comfortable and supports it.
Marsha Rummel asks why this is being considered. When we talked about connection between this building and across the street, if we move to a third location, then there would be three buildings. She wonders if that was discussed.
Scott Resnick wants an answer to that question from staff. George Austin says that the intent of the initial language and the new language is about creating options, we don’t have a path forward that is a specific set of recommendations. This is another option. He says they want to consider all the pieces, it adds flexibility and its to their benefit as a city. He says he thinks this makes the most sense. He says that as the development team thinks about it, they have the options, this is not prejudging where the offices will be.
Resnick asks if there is a report that says how much square footage the city needs? Where are the numbers coming from, why wasn’t it included the first time. Austin says that this was info from when they looked at the renovations and they studied options with the architect.
Notion passes on voice vote. Rummel votes no.
Mark Clear makes an amendment page 8, paragraph 8 about the hotel component, he changes it to “national convention headquarters brand”, he wants it to be headquarters quality, Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau and Monona Terrace say it is critical to the success of the project.
Mo Cheeks says that he doesn’t know what that phrase means and he wants it clarified.
Larry Palm says he had the same question. He wants to hear from Monona Terrace Director.
Gregory McManners the Monona Terrace Director says it is open to interpretation, its a loaded question, ultimately it is a hotel that event planners would want to bring attendees to and that has a brand they understand and know the amenities.
Palm says McDonalds is consistent but that is not a good example of why we should build McDonalds, doesn’t that negate the Madison concept, the Edgewater and Concourse are more indicative of what Madison is. McManners says event planners don’t know what Madison is, we do. Name brands sell hotel packages. Palm says name brands is different than level of amenities. He says they got into trouble when they were specific. McManners says that all hotels come with programming element consistent with the flag, exercise areas, meeting space, pools, those are consistent with a flag, the characteristics of the flag come with it. Palm says that he amendment isn’t about amenities abut a national brand so people know what they will get, should it have been phrased as national hotel brand? McManners says that the specifics are in the RFP. The characteristics are outlined in the RFP.
David Ahrens says that over the 2 hours discussion at Board of Estimates this amendment was opposed and failed unanimously due to the ambiguity of it. There are different opinions and interpretations and that is the path they are going to. The phrase has no particular meaning except what each person thinks it means, we could end up with a range of features that are of no concern or interest to us. It tries to impose something that isn’t needed.
Mayor says that instead of adopting the amendment, they adopt the old RFP and go back to square one and make the same errors. Unfortunately Verveer and him were not persuasive last time about the hotel, there is tons of language in here, that describes how the hotel will relate to Monona Terrace Convention – he reads portions of it – walking distance, room blocks etc. The last RFP created submissions for hotels that we could not afford, he would suggest they do it right this time, he didn’t recall they voted on this at BOE, he knows it was overwhelming, lets get to work and do this right and not repeat the same mistake they made last time. We can’t have everything we want, we can’t afford it. This RFP recognizes that. This RFP recognizes that the council does not have the stomach to make the significant TIF contribution to this hotel, it recognizes that there are other options, that base on cost benefit, we can still add hotel rooms without a full service hotel. If this round of RFP fails, we’ll have to rethink it again, he sees no reason to go down the same path they went down already.
Clear says those two words won’t lead them where they were before. He agreees that there is a risk that they get proposals that they don’t have the fortitude to support, but there is also the risk that they get proposals that are not of the hotel quality that will help Monona Terrace. If they get a nice hotel, but what we already have that have been absorbed quickly and don’t help Monona Terrace one bit, then we will have a hotel at this location that will not help Monona Terrace build its business. If we go down that path we will have equally failed, but it will be worse because we will have built on the site and not have that opportunity again, that is the mistake they made with the Hilton. It was insufficiently large to get the room block they need, we can correct that mistake because the Hilton can’t be expanded and we don’t want to fumble this opportunity too. He says there was no motion at Board of Estimates, he couldn’t make the motion because he wasn’t on the Board. No member felt the interest in taking it up. He says we need to understand the market, this is not for convention goers, this will be marketed to convention planners and that is who we need to target and they need to understand that this is a convention headquarters level hotel, if not we will lose that opportunity.
Weier says the RFP says “urban mixed use hotel” that doesn’t sound like a convention type hotel.
George Austin says in the same section the rest of the sentence says “that has a national brand, and full service attributes without the full service costs”. What the RFP is trying to do is not repeat the first experience but to give flexibility. This is to get many amenities you find in a full service hotel package, but at a reduced cost. There were two amendments, the words “to enhance and attract additional conventions” was added to the RFP. There was another sentence that identified products that the Convention and Visitors Bureau thought didn’t recognize the full service nature of the project and that was deleted. That was an attempt to address Alder Clear’s needs without using that exact language.
Verveer says that the Mayor and George Austin said what he wanted to say happened at Board of Estimates, they spent a lot of time parsing every word of this section. Deb Archer asked for the amendment to have “convention” added and Clear asked for the amendment now before them. He (Verveer) also asked staff about adding the word “convention” and to be frank the reason he didn’t make the motion was the response from Mr. Austin. We’ve been down the path for many years, and hopefully this new RFP will allow us to have success and he believes the Board of Estimates language is right.
Fails on a voice vote, sounded like Clear was the only one to vote aye.
Motion passes on voice vote unanimously.
#72 – Bus Rapid Transit Study
Registrant from Tree Lane resident Sofia Rogers, supporting and available to answer questions.
Anita Weier says the title on the resolution was different than the title inside that was amended and she wants to make sure it has the correct title.
Dave Trowbridge, Traffic Engineer, he says the new resolution has the changes. Weier says it is wrong in legistar, it is the previous version.
Weier moves that the title be corrected as recommended. It’s seconded.
Chris Schmidt asks if this is the recommendation, Trowbridge says yes, that was the intent of the committee. Schmidt says that they made the original amendment, but it should have been the substitute. Confusion. Mayor asks if the agree on what the title should be. Weier says yes. Mayor asks if the motion makes it consistent, Weier says yes. Schmidt says it puts that title on original and not passes the whole substitute. Confusion. Weier withdraws motion, no objection. Mayor says if it was just editorial you could direct the clerk to fix it. Schmidt moves the substitute.
Clear says he doesn’t know what the substitute is. They now seem Clear. Maybe. Mayor says that this reminds him of the George Carlan routine where the cat goes careening off the wall and says “I meant to do that”. Chris Schmidt says that he is glad they did this because they would have technically would have adopted the wrong resolution.
#17 – Billboards
Reconsideration
Alders Strasser moves reconsideration to override the mayoral veto.
No discussion.
Motion passes 13 to 6. (Verveer, Palm, Rummel, Weier, Zellers and Ahrens vote no. Subeck absent)
I guess that wasn’t so controversial as expected.
Public Testimony
Several people who either own property billboard are on or sell advertising testify, plus one person who is in support of the mayor’s veto.
Helen Coppes(?) She supports the sign ordinance. Economic development opportunities would be open and there would be more lease flexibility. She is a small business person, she purchased some old buildings and improved them, pays $38,000 in taxes. She created a business, employed people and advertises on billboards. She hopes the naysayers will change their mind.
Jason Saari is available to answer questions. (lobbyist for Adams Outdoor Advertising)
Tina Zaperel? She owns a small ad agency in McFarland WI. She places ads on billboards for her clients, it helps build and grow their business and when they have sales and events they need options of billboards. She also works with nonprofits and Adams has been generous in providing space for free or at low cost, most recently drunk driving signs at New Years Eve.
J.T. Coveli (sp?) She also owns an advertising company, since 1986, she says alot of them have made up their minds, but she works with 6 local companies and they employ hundreds of people, she spends on their behalf a million a year buying radio, magazine ads, transit and a little bit of outdoor. The businesses employ our neighborhoods and friends and make Madison a vibrant place and they need to reach people of all ages. A big part of her challenge is the millenials, and the thousands of Epic employees among them, they are different, they do not watch television very much, they seldom listen to the radio, they do not read a newspaper. They use social media and get what they need on line. They bike, they bus, they drive and they buy much of their good on line and put brick and mortar in danger. The way to reach them is by using outdoor, it sounds crazy, but it works. They see the signage with their ipod on. They have messages about HPV and cancer, saving energy, seeing the dentist, the messages we need to reach these people, she raised three of them and they are almost alien to her, they make their decisions to buy completely differently, they are educated, they are pumping money into the economy by the millions of dollars, consider what is happening in our future, as they move in to power positions in our community and we need to be able to reach them, and she does that through outdoor and transit. She lives near the beltline and has for 31 years and when American Transition needed to put power line up, she found it terribly depressing, but looked in her home and saw all the things they didn’t have 20 years ago and she needs electricity, so she said it was the right thing for the community whether or not she thought it was a good thing for herself. Young people are hard to reach, and she can reach them through signage.
John Jacobs says those were interesting comments given some alders said billboards won’t be as important in the future. He didn’t know about the legislation until the veto was reported. The mayor’s comments made sense, it all did, except that this legislation can be easily fixed, I don’t think so, unless you like billboards. The current ordinance tries to reduce billboards, cap and replace comes at it from a different direction by providing entitlement forever, it is fundamentally flawed and can’t be fixed. At the last council meeting Verveer says that the billboard ordinance has tried to get these changes for years, including as far back as 1989. After 26 years of trying, they may have their wish come true, only now only the zoning administrator will approve it. He points out 2 billboards on 1200 East Washington will go away, unless this ordinance is passed. The Regent St. example is another one, why should the city help pay if the property owner paid too much for the land. The developer and Adams will make out great and have billboards forever while the city shoulders the burden. No wonder the mayor said where is our cut. In cap and replace there is nothing to prevent them from double dipping, the billboard company can still enforce their leases and then get a guaranteed entitltement of square footage. There could still be a financing problem, if so, what have we gained. The other issue is the billboards being annexed in the Town of Madison. Do what your predecessors did, care about the long term beauty of our city, uphold the mayor’s veto, reject cap and replace, you can’t fix it.
Discussion
Mayor says that he failed to ask for a proper motion after reconsideration. Schmidt says he thought they didn’t need a motion, Mayor says he would feel better if there was a motion. (Michael May, city attorney nods his head) Schmidt makes a motion for approval.
Schmidt says he’s knows you are all frustrated. Alder Strasser has the right to have his say, but if you have questions, make them now, if we are changing our mind we deserve to know why. We aren’t going to hear anything new, much of what we thought was new last time was not.
Strasser says there are billboards where leases are up and have a good chance of disappearing and those that are standing in the way of development with years left on their leases. Do we want to tank development or reshuffle the billboards, that is the biggest issue. He wants to support cap and replace.
Mayor asks Matt Tucker about the email about the two billboards. Mayor hopes that he can explain that when this is done and that the city attorney can explain the consequences. He thinks Mr. Jacobs addressed this soundly. There are serious flaws with the ordinance, flaws that will allow billboard that would otherwise come down, that will result in significant incentives, that move them elsewhere where they will be a permanent fixture. Council after council for decades has worked to minimize the number of billboards in the city and this is the first step backwards in 40 years, it undermines all the work in the challenges that we have done in terms of the blight. We have heard it before, someone signs a lease, gets paid for it and then wants to do something else and then we are expected to solve their financial problem and perpetuate the problem. On Regent there is a way out, leave the ordinance the way it is, the property owner can buy out the lease from the billboard company or wait the 7 years and then do the development, but as a consequence of the ordinance, there is no cost to the property owner that gained revenue and the rest of the community, will now have a billboard not built out of wood that will deteriorate and come down, but built out of steel and stay there hopefully not as long as the pyramids. This is an administrative process where you take the decision out of your hands, your successors hands and administratively Mr. Tucker and those who succeed him will have to look at the ordinance and if the standards are met automatically issue a permit for the sign. There is no judgement here for an elected body to make a decision, maybe that is the boal to avoid the responsibility. There are amendments that can fix this, an appeal process, put a life on the length of time the new billboard can go up and the third is perhaps pick a time frame that in any case the ordinance should not apply to any billboard that has a lease expiration in less than 15 or 20 years. He would hope that they would sustain the veto, come back, bring in a new ordinance, make the changes and have something that in those exceptional cases will allow fro relocation, but not perpetuate billboards that would ahve come down but for the adoption of this ordinance.
David Ahrens has a questions for Schmidt. He mentioned that he did further research on the DOT attorney testimony, can you explain that. Schmidt says that he went back and listened to the attorney’s testimony because he brought oup issues people were worried about and he said that on federal highways you cannot zone a site for billboards within 600 feet and if so the funding would be cut. In the city rezoning would run into the comprehensive plan to not have new billboards. We would be creating a zoning amendment not consistent with comprehensive plan. He says it is a convenience for the DOT for the city to approve the permits and if we are out of compliance, the sign company needs to get two approvals, it doesn’t hurt us. He says there is no evidence of limit of a lifetime on the billboards. Those were the primary points.
Stasser says that he agrees with everything the Mayor said, he agrees with the changes and would support. It is a question of procedure, do you overturn, adopt it and make changes or scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. He says those changes could be back in 30 days. He agrees that the billboards not in the city today should not be part of cap and replace. He thinks the mayor’s idea of this only applying to billboards expiring in 10 or 15 years is a good one. Its just a procedure thing, he thinks the easiest way is to overturn the veto.
Subeck says this is ironic we are discussing the day after groundhogs day. She wants to speak to Strassers point of passing now and amending later. No matter how you feel about the ordinance, its not good practice to pass something that is not soup, its better to wait. She says it should come back in the format people are looking for, she has concerns about the procedure and administrative approval with no grounds to deny. She would hate to pass the ordinance, have an application before the amendments are made, we should act responsibly and go back to the kitchen and put together something that has unfortunate and highly concerning unintended consequences.
Verveer wants to repeat arguments he made at the last meeting, and speak to Strasser and the amendments that are needed. He says this is the most litigious industry in the U.S. and have the majority of the board in our community, they have been aggressively litigious and to have this amendment published and on the books for one day scares him tremendously and he doesn’t think threat they would be doing their constituents a service to allow this to take effect when they know it needs changes. Look at the Allied agenda item that was passed under suspension of the rules, we don’t need a year to fix the defects. There is already language drafted, we should exercise extreme caution. He gives Schmidt credit, says it is a new day to reverse decades long policy, if that is the way it is so be it, you don’t win everything, but he thinks they should do it cautiously and carefully and allow the Mayor and Schmidt to work with staff to get a version that allows for cap and replace but has the protections.
(And the government should leave businesses alone award goes to . . . Chris Schmidt)
Schmidt says that the reason you didn’t see amendments is because a lot of the cases are minimalist periphery cases, there are permits out there that could put up billboards and they haven’t done it. This was always a zoning administrator decision, he doesn’t know why we need to change this. Of course this is a litigious industry, we (government) have been working to eliminate it for decades, so of course they have been fighting back. What was interesting is that the highway beautification act the Congress did not intend to take out the industry. Could we come back with amendments, yes and we can do that quickly, but a lot of things we are talking about are not possible. The legislative review, we beat this into the ground, we can’t do it. How do we write standards that a legislative body can review. Do we want to say “I don’t like it”, we don’t write standards that way, people might vote that way. He thought about this alot and tried to write standards. If you are worried about a specific site, deal with that site, in some cases they are right next to an urban design district they should be in anyways. Others simply won’t get a billboard, we only have a few made of wood, nothing is wearing out. This is the third time we are having this discussion, he was hoping we would give Strasser an opportunity to speak and be done with it. He says there has been a lot of hyperbole and fear, a lot of situation s that are isolated cases that can be dealt with. Yes there are billboard that will be able to live, that would have died. He said that the first time. They aren’t going to spend money just for fun. What they have in front of them is workable, they can make some amendments and they can appeal this if something goes wrong.
DeMarb wants to ask Strasser a question, Mayor says she can ask the chair and he can get in the queue. She wants to know what ordinances he thinks are necessary and why they are good amendments. Mayor says they will get to him when he gets in the queue. She asks what happens when the billboards in the Towns come in, will they be subject to cap and replace. City Attorney Mike May says yes, they would. She asks how many billboards exist today and how many are in the towns that will be coming in. Mr. Tucker says back in 2007 there were 120ish signs and we added 4 and took down the same amount. They have no idea how many are in the town.
Schmidt asks to move suspension to the let the billboard lobbyist answer a questions. What if the ordinance was passed would you hold off for two months to for the amendments before you do anything. Saari says yes.
Palm says that he has been quiet on the whole thing. He keeps looking at the map and he has 16 to 17 billboard, a good number are in design districts, a handful in place they shouldn’t be and won’t be allowed in the future, a handful could remain in place. He has been looking at his district and he thinks that in the end, he would support this. This goes beyond the economics of jobs or money in the city, this is about the kind of community we are. He has visited places that have lots of billboards, and places that don’t and they are more pleasant. He has been looking at it from a district perspective and his district would benefit. He says that Alder Schmidt told him to ask questions, if you think his district won’t benefit, let him know, that is the way he sees it. He is not sold that for the city this is the best approach.
Rummel says that she wasn’t going to speak, she says the woman talking about millennials and we let her go over for 5 minutes that was the new information, we convinced ourselves that billboards will go away and her testimony gave her pause. When she sees billboards it is for companies offering to buy upside down properties. They can be great messages. Her experience was with Union Corners, she spent a year discussing how to get rid of the billboard, legally. The legal way, there is one way, we could have done it. They tried the redevelopment district. They wanted to put it above the Malt House. The billboard attaches to the property in ways you can’t get around. She would feel more comfort with amendments, the ones she likes is that after 15 years they just go away and the annexed land should not be included. It was nice to hear Adams would wait, if they can’t wait, why don’t we and then do the amendments in one package.
(And the development at all costs award for the evening goes to . . . . Alder Strasser. Lemme guess, he is endorsed by the Chamber.)
Strasser agrees with Rummel, those are the two amendments he would like to see. He says they were trying to figure out how to get them drafted and here without taking up lots of council time. What we have today is override the veto. You want to move a billboard with 20 years on the lease, they will never commit suicide and remove that billboard forever, you are backing them up against the wall and then saying how dare you not play ball with us. There are billboards coming up for renewal. The majority of the billboards are not coming up for renewal. Looking at the broader view of the city, they looked at BRT routes to spur development. The argument is to get people to concentrate infill in these areas, what if there is a billboard standing in the way? We are making decisions with not regard to where the billboards are, we don’t know what will happen 50 years from now. We don’t know which scheme will have more effect to reduce billboard years from now. The state could change the laws, we don’t know what will happen. What we know today is where we want development to go. To say that I am more interested in removing billboards in the city than allowing one or two billboard be reshuffled in the city to optimize our investment in the city, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. We have to compromise like everyone else has to. There are some amendments they can make to make it better. The annexed lands is one issue, restricting the terms of the lease could be made tonight, that little language is stopping it from moving forward. He is not saying billboards are beautiful and we need more of them, but what is more important is the ability to plan and grow and develop the way they feel is best for the city. It is in the city’s best interest to get the sign owners to play ball with the city and shuffle the signs to make room for devleopment.
Mayor asks the City Attorney if this becomes law upon publications and we give billboard owners additional property rights which might get challenged while we put the toothpaste back in the tube, can one person from a billboard company come up here and waive their legal rights. Michael May says what the lobbyist said is not binding.
Steve King says that he appreciates that we would reconsider something for one person, but not 1 hour and 10 minutes of the same debate, he would like to call the question, he wants to end debate. That is not debatable. Mayor says if you call the question only one person can object, if you move the previous questions needs a second and 3/4 vote. He moves the previous question. Palm, Subeck, Verveer and Zellers vote no.
Motion (to cut off debate) passes for first time in 4 years, says the Mayor.
Motion is to override the veto of the mayor, if you want to override the veto you vote aye, if you don’t want that to happen you vote no.
AYE: Bidar-Sielaff, Cheeks, Clear, Cnare, Daily, King, Phair, Resnick, Schmidt, Skidmore, Strasser,
NO: Clausius, DeMarb, Palm, Rummel, Subeck, Verveer, Weier, Zellers, Ahrens
11 – 9, motion fails (they need 3/4 vote)
Introductions from the floor
Schnidt says they are listed on the sheet. Phair wants a crossing guard to be added to the budget from contingent reserve, $9,000.
Move Adjournment.
