Since everything was referred because Bruer wasn’t here . . . I’m kinda surprised that the meeting still took two hours. Funding for public television stations (WYOU, Madison City Channel), stimulus money to create jobs and vehicle miles traveled . . . Thuy, ox carts and prostitutes. I was going to not be so detailed today, but since you can’t view the video on city channel, I did it anyways, but it may be a bit abbreviated.
Kerr & Bruer absent. Oddly, there were no items to keep them busy until 6:45 so they did the consent agenda and got to an item or two before 6:45.
CONSENT AGENDA
They passed everything with the recommendations on the agenda with the exception of the following:
55 was re-referred to Board of Estimates and Common Council Organizational Committee
75 was referred to Common Council Organizational Committee
26 Sanborn voted no
Items they separated to discuss were:
Public Hearing items 1 – 9.
Items
10 – Mayor Appointments
25 – CDBG stimulus money for a for profit to create jobs
56 – Repealing car door ordinance
68 – Vehicle Miles Traveled
69 – PEG funding for public access television
After the consent agenda was approved, they took things slightly out of order.
CAR DOORS
Mark Clear explains that he had originally wanted the ordinance to stay in place because they could give a city city instead of doing a state citation. He explained that he was kind of wrong because they can still do that because the entire state law is incorporated into the city ordinances by reference so city tickets may be issued. Passed unanimously.
LOSS OF PEG FUNDING/CREATING A COMMITTEE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FUND CITY CHANNEL
Rick Richards, Chair of WYOU Board explained that the loss of these funds was triggered by change in state law called the Video Competition Act. He says he’s there to speak because city channel is critical and needs to survive. He says that this kind of loss of funding is significant. At WYOU they discovered that traditional methods to replace the funding is challenging for several reasons. Charter moved all the PEG channels from lower tears to the 900s. Regular customers have trouble finding us, so its hard to reach out to them for fundraising. He says that HDTV is another problem because they get weekly calls from people who can’t get to the new channels after the switch. Third thing for WYOU is that economic downturn has dried up grants and charitable money which is what they would be going after to replace the PEG funds making progress and the transition difficult. He offers to lend WYOUs expertise and support to the committee based on the last few months of struggling to figure this out. He says they are additionally challenged because a year ago the Mayor talked with them about other options like combining WYOU and city channel but because WYOUs teaching mission would have caused loss of staff and public access it wasn’t feasible. Mayor kept funding in tact for 2009, but his intention was to cut that funding in half in 2010. WYOU will be coming back and asking for full PEG funding for 2010 because it has been hard to replace that funding.
Barbara Bolan – Executive Director of WYOU. Says as she walked over here she saw a sign that said a goal without a plan is just a wish. When she got to WYOU 9 months ago, every day, every step, every decision has been focused on setting stage for new revenues, to transition from PEG funding to a diversely funded TV station. She says now they can deliver Madison’s content to a world wide audience. She says the plan is to keep doors open and they are in process of meeting with community members, teachers and other interested parties to find income. WYOU is developing media services for hire, offering non-profit assistance that they couldn’t otherwise afford. They have been at community events and visible, talking to people and educating them about the education mission of the station when they help people learn cameras and editing and help them have their voices heard. She says the goal is to keep the doors open to the community and plan to continue to develop strategies to do that. She says the welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to see how we can all survive these funding cuts.
Motion passed without discussion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Items 1 through 9 had no people there to speak and the items passed with the recommendations on the agenda.
MAYORAL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS #10
Pham-Remmele [My apologies, I just don’t have the energy this morning to fix this any more than I have.] says that she asked to have item excluded. Doesn’t feel like she has any information about the people who the mayor recommends except the name. She says they don’t know what other candidates are recommended. Knows that mayor wants new blood so not serve so long. Last time she pulled Rosemary Lee’s name since she served since 2000 – so she’d be serving 12 years and now the info was changed to 2003. Is this an error? When looks at the rest of the commission members, many are vendors themselves and people raising concerns about conflicts of interest. So, if really having a committee serving the public interest, are we really selecting the people who will help the city do the job right. Learned and sat through meeting and people came in for public hearing, and its nothing personal, but Rosemary Lee is serving with alot of passion and there have been incidents where people were snubbed at or badgered and it became embarrassing and we are here to serve the public. So she brought it up a couple times to the city staff and lawyer and wants to see that improved and they said that they talked to her. Doesn’t want people who come to work with city hall to not be treated with respect – she just wanted to know and when we select people to serve the public, we are not here to boss people. We are here to serve. [Wow, its been a while since I saw an alder go after a citizen volunteer by name like that . . . in fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that on the council floor.]
Motion passed without discussion.
CDBG FUNDING #25
MOTION
Is adoption with additional language requiring that the applicant have the the equivalent of 6 full time years of new jobs by 2005. If that happens roughly $53K will become a grant instead of a loan.
DISCUSSION
[WARNING: The world seemed to have turned upside down as people made arguments they may soon regret if they hope to remain consistent.]
Clear says that the applicant is a for profit which is different than what CDBG typically funds. It is also a start up and this is seed money, so no track record, no previous experience to base any kind of guess on how this would be successful. Start ups more risky and prone to failure. Clear says that the applicant said the number of jobs that would be created and that helped them rise to the top of the pile. So, we’re saying that if they meet the goals they stated, which he tried to be flexible with how they do, then half the loan would be forgiven by the time the other half of the loan would be due.
QUESTIONS
Rhodes-Conway asks many questions of staff. Clingan describes the RFP process, he talks about commission and committee process, says there was an hour worth of discussion at CDBG with [an unprecedented] 6 alders in attendance and CDBG voted in favor again. Rhodes-Conway asks about staff evaluation process. Why did this application stand out. He said these are public dollars and they have a responsibility to guard the public trust. Comfort that they heard was that they would not enter into the agreement until there was a lease. Loan has to be secured. Individual involved would have proof of financing and HUD requires them to look at the job creation and doesn’t care that it stay in place, CDBG says it has to stay for a year. Hard to predict and always some risk. He says that while they don’t fund for profits directly, indirectly, we’ve put public dollars with WIBBIC, Common Wealth and Madison Development Commission for years. He cites a Madison Development Commission $80,000 loan for 6 years with 3 positions created. Rhodes-Conway asked if conditions to address the areas of concerns are in the contract and a standard way of doing business. Clingan says there was alot of conversation about it being a for-profit and how we relate to for profits through CDBG. He says this was the beginnings of discussion for future policy discussion. He says they are doing something different because this is stimulus money. CDBG commission is excited about this opportunity to help start a small business and create jobs in a shopping center that has had difficulties, but very interested in alders and their opinions and they take their jobs seriously and they respect the alders point of view. Rhodes-Conway asked how this stacked up against other proposals. Clingan says this proposal created more FTEs but some applied for less dollars. There were only 4 or 5 total applications and he thinks all raters rated this proposal number one. Rhodes-Conway asks about timing and if applicant declines to work with us. Clingan says HUD wants money out by mid August. If current vendor decides not to pursue this, they would likely go to second rated proposal, but it would have to go to CDBG, BOE and Council and that will be September before it got approved. Hard to know what HUD will do – not sure we are at great risk, HUD is murky (in many areas), we might get our hands slapped.
Rummel asks if vendor has seen the resolution. Why 6 instead of 4? Clear says that the vendor has not seen the amendment. He explains that it is potentially confusing language about the number of jobs. He explains 6 years of positions, so could have 2 people for 3 years. Trying to give more flexibility. Trying to make it easier to make those positions.
Schumacher asks Clingan about an apparent conflict in that this is a new experience for CDBG to give private companies money and yet said given money to Common Wealth, WIBBIC and Madison Development Corporation. Clingan says this is the first time money was given directly to a for-profit. Schumacher points out MDC etc are loans. Schumacher’s asks if this is the first grant? He says yes to his knowledge.
DISCUSSION
Rhodes-Conway says this project is in her district, and they excited about it and she hopes that the Council can support it without the amendment. It’s unfortunate that the applicant is not here tonight, because Rhodes-Conway assured her it wouldn’t be happening like this tonight, [Oooo, ouch. I hope there is a back story to that, because based on the CDBG meeting I attended, this appeared to be a train wreck coming . . . bad advice! Unless there was something I didn’t know.] cuz if she was here you would hear about an impressive business model and proposal that is worth our investment. It’s a form of economic development in a part of the city that really needs it, in an aging mall that needs things going on and in which we are trying to get activity and storefronts filled. This is something that would generate excitement in the community. We have alot of small, home-based businesses on the north side and we are trying to grow those and encourage more to begin. They are realistic that they are not going to be attracting huge manufacturing or large retail stores and they need job creation, this is the kind of thing that they need to encourage. Says it is also worthy because of the nature of the business and the way in which is contributes to food security. Will Allen in Milwaukee, who got a McArthur Genius grant trains people to take the green house system and spread it out around the world and Dr. Wilheit was trained by him and built a business proposal around that. It’s intensive urban agriculture in a way we have not previously seen. Finally, its worth our investment because exactly what stimulus money is designed to do. Supposed to be creating jobs. Appreciates the sentiment. Hopes that support the proposal but is frustrated with the amendment because she feels it is changing the rules of the game midstream. The city issued a RFP and people responded in good faith and it not fair to change the rules. Not fair to single this proposal out. If we want to have a policy discussion about job guarantees, we should structure our RFP and contract language to reflect that. It should be a policy discussion, not about a proposal. Shouldn’t single this out to practice on it.
MOTION TO SEPARATE/DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT
Rhodes-Conway separates amendment from the underlying motion. Would like to have a discussion. We should encourage this type of project and be fair in our process. Immediately after this we can start the policy discussion on job creation guarantees in contracts and RFPs.
Compton says this is tough because when she looked at item 25 she wants to support people who made the motion and the CDBG office and thinks they are capable of making the decision except the unknown Higher Ground Urban Farm. Track record of Operation Fresh Start, YWCA and Common Wealth are knowns. She sees this as the same amount of money, except we are saying that 2 jobs in 3 years which is not that much. So having a hard time. Says this amendment is not a threat, it is a simple request. Supports this and loves the enthusiasm around that project.
Clausius in favor of amendment. No problem with other fundees, all non-profits, all have track records. No info whatsoever on the for profit, could be here today, gone tomorrow. It’s for profit not non-profit. Protects public interest. Will only support it if the amendment passes.
Bidar-Sielaff (after mic problems) says that she’s a member of CDBG and that they had a thorough and spirited discussion at the last meeting and the members of the CDBG unanimously supported the project without the amendment because of the issues that they were changing the rules in the middle. They had responded to a RFP in good faith and this was a change of policy and wasn’t fair to apply different rules to the applicant. Good policy discussion but having a hard time making a policy discussion about this project. Aa a new alder she wanted to look at for-profit funding for projects and what better way than stimulus money for job creation. They are a start up, that is what the money is for. May not have assurances, as we don’t with many investments through CDBG and non-profits. Would also like to have assurances that money is being well spent, however, really struggling to single out this applicant because they are for profit with no track record. CDBG looked at it twice and supported it with usual conditions and didn’t want to make any amendments.
Skidmore said that he agrees with Compton, he says supports amendment and agrees that all of the other projects are fine, unconditional support for YWCA, CW and OFS. Wants to manage the risk, will support other three, but won’t support everything unless separated.
Clear says that he says yes they are changing the rules, changing the parameters, we are not just a rubber stamp. Would have had this discussion at BOE but didn’t vote on or discuss this item there. Consideration and vote at CDBG was not exactly as Bidar-Sielaff described it. CDBG voted to reconsider and that vote failed. Procedurally odd, didn’t consider amendment. Disagrees that there is more risk because it is a for-profit – doesn’t change risk to the city. Agrees with Compton this is not onerous on the applicant, changes nothing if they do what they say they are going to do, hopes he is strengthening the support for the underlying project.
Palm agrees with Compton, hadn’t thought about it much either way. Not so sure that people wouldn’t know that the council has the right to change things. Doesn’t think that making an amendment on the floor is out of line. Makes library comparison, logical if they say they can produce the jobs that we hold them to it. If you can make the commitment we would cancel half the debt, so that is a fair trade off. Supports amendment and resolution.
Rummel said she’d feel better if applicant was here. Typically when we exercise this judgment the applicant is here to say yes or no. Hesitant to support it. Dr. Wilhoit has run two businesses for over a decade in Madison and Milw. She is fulfilling a need to do urban ag and standard contract that CDBG issues works 99.9% of the time. Rummel reiterates some of the important protections in the agreement and notes that it is not like this hasn’t had scrutiny. Would like policy discussion afterwards not on the fly.
Solomon tries to speak, but there are lots of mic problems. Points made on both sides, but she has gone through the process and he is uncomfortable treating this one differently. This is about job creation and more – supports the concept and the project.
King says that politics is messy, agrees with Rhodes-Conway and Solomon and this has gone through a legit process, but has done the math and thinks the whole thing will go down and he feels like the amendment is necessary to get the rest of it to pass.
Sanborn supports amendment, he’s worried about the risk in taxpayer money in start up business. He points out the business is growing veggies in the winter in Madison WI. He says it may have worked elsewhere, but how much subsidy did they get? Look at spreadsheet on the utility costs in Jan and Feb. Doesn’t think they should be using $100,000 of taxpayer money to throw at this idea without some added security for taxpayers.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON AMENDMENT
AYE: Clear, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Palm, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Clausius, Pham-Remmele
NO: Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Schmidt, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Cnare (who explains that she votes that way as a member of the Community Services Commission)
ABSENT: Bruer, Kerr
Passes 11 – 7.
Cnare and Pham-Remmele both passed initially.
DISCUSSION ON AMENDED RESOLUTION
Sanborn, still won’t support underlying motion. He says that people should look at the nature of this business and how other businesses in Madison would view this if they get the money. You could say those other businesses didn’t apply, but they don’t normally go to city government to apply for money. How will people in the city view this. If you vote for this, you need to take responsibility for how it turns out and how well the money is spent.
Rhodes-Conway says she respects decision about the guarantee, but wants to see a policy put in place. However she still thinks its an excellent project, not a well established business model but one that is working in other areas of the country, including Milwaukee and what is relevant to us is what the RFP asked for which is job creation. Urges you to support.
Clear reinforces comments about potential and excitement about this project. Most exciting and innovative of the bunch and hopes no one interprets the amendment as being critical or unsupportive of the project.
Pham-Remmele says questions to clarify, when votes will it include everything in the item. Mayor says yes. Pham-Remmele says that the numbers changed for OFS, great faith and support, but sees $167,000 changed to $269,000, she asks why that changed.
Clingan says that in the midst of the RFP we had a different message from HUD, thought would have to award the money to OFS and have city employees be the staff. However at a conference CDBG staff learned that they could do the contract differently. So, no city employees.
Pham-Remmele concludes aloud that OFS has control of who they hire to do the work and city staff doesn’t provide a service {and I think she was happy about that. But she ended up voting no, so I didn’t understand . . .]
Cnare says that she said the urban ag concept in the zoning code rewrite is important and thinks that everyone should go check out this new business because we will likely have more.
Compton supports, likes the way people are beginning to think and injecting money into job creation, but says [I don’t know . . . ] She thinks that the council is ready to take a look at job creation in small ways. A couple jobs in an urban farm is good, a couple hundred jobs in a large company are better. Now we have to go out of the box and look for industry to support these smaller idealic parts of Madison. Need more than this. Watching folks and supporting their efforts . . .
ROLL CALL VOTE ON AMENDED LANGUAGE
This item needs 15 votes to pass because it amends the budget.
AYE: Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Schumacher, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Clausius, Skidmore
NO: Pham-Remmele, Sanborn
ABSENT: Kerr, Bruer
Passes 16 – 2
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
There is a third substitute, not in legistar at the moment.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Carole Schaefer – Smart Growth Madison – supports amendment. [Sorry, someone was talking to me . . . ] Didn’t support but given changes – thanks for the compromise.
Delora Newton – Chamber of Commerce – Initially opposed because of specific language, but can support 3rd substitute. Never objected to the collection of the data, credit to Bidar-Sielaff and Schmidt and Rhodes-Conway for understanding that this is the essence of what would happen. Also thanks for communicating about process and being open to working with us.
Eric Sundquist. Supports 2nd substitute. He’s a Long Range Transportation Planning Committee and Plan Commission member. He says 5 years form now we will have a vehicle miles driven tax. He says this has evolved over the past year. The previous speakers didn’t weigh in until now. He’s been involved for a year and walked in tonight and got a new version that was never discussed until now. Takes away all the work done by the committees in the last year. If you value that input and comments you should respect them. He says the 2nd version was already a compromise. If all they’re going to do is collect data, he points out that is already done and it is available on the city website. He said the data is old school way to justify new roads. So, without purpose, same data will come back to us. He says the goal was to reduce traffic and have a transportation assessment to help the decision making process. That is being taken out of this new version. All this was, was a means to get there. He urges them to think twice about backing off on this and asks them to restore what the city committees have done.
Rummel – asks Sundquist how he would use the data on the plan commission? He points to the be it further resolved that when comp plan amended include the goals, which has now been deleted. He says when staff report comes out about a project they would have a way to report the impact on the project. He notes the goal isn’t to rake people over the coals but put a finger on how development impacts transportation and then they could look at ways to mitigate that. Might shine light on some of our assumptions and perhaps we would find that we are wrong that and that 10 stories with retail on 1st floor might not be the solution we are looking for, but that is how we could look at it.
Rummel says that they’d have to look at denisty. Sundquist says that for residential would look at how close employment, schools and other daily activities are. For commercial look at different things. Twis would allow us to have a way to look at the issues and have it be on the table. This would be just another thing that the plan commission would look at. And we could respond in a more systematic way.
Compton asks Sundquist about if they would look at employment centers and business that are proposed or in existance. He says look at both. He says that there could be an analysis done. They would look at things like if people have to drive 10 miles to get to the grocery. He says this isn’t about not having cars, but having more efficient travel.
Cnare says that she was lone no vote but worked with Sundquist to get to version number 2. Thought making good progress. She asks Sundquist if we can take what we learn from 3 to get to 2. Sundquist says that this resolution clause that refers back to Long Range is what makes it actionable, instead of data we already have. He says that was the key. Worked at length with staff on that. Everyone will have input on that, that will move us forward. If version three goes through they may have to start over.
DISCUSSION
Sanborn says that detail shows TPC recommended approval, and in fact, that motion failed.
Rhodes-Conway says that she appreciates all the committees and citizens that have commented on this. (Smart Growth, Chamber, alders who crafted language before them). She appreciates Sundquist because he was the motivating force behind this to begin with. Glad committee member took this level of interest and took time to tell us how they could make better decisions. Commends Sundquist for this. Says she reluctantly supports 3rd substitute, but liked the first version. Anything can be word smithed, but at some point you just give up. She thinks that the reasons she introduced it to begin with and reason she supports the 3rd substitute is about getting us better info, presented in a clear and usable way and incorporating that into the decision making process. We need to have transportation and land use informed by information about traffic. This is a growing city, starting to have traffic problem, she has lived in LA and we’re not at that level, but we need to engage in better transportation planning. Need at staff level and commission level to think more broadly about transportation system and do a better job of planning for the future. Discussion for another day,. Need to look at the big picture, good at neighborhood plan level, but don’t do a good job crossing the boundaries of the plans and look at the larger system. This is a first step in that direction, not all the steps, will get us some info and get it in a better format. The commissions and committees can have a more informed discussion. She fully intends to initiate a discussion (when she gets the first report) about what is next, what policies or procedures do we need to set down to make that happen. Hopefully a year or so from now we can support a more comprehensive policy that supports where we want to be as a city.
Compton says that she appreciate Rhodes-Conway and dedication. She says she wants a Rhodes-Conway wants a zero carbon footprint – Rhodes-Conway says she never said that. Compton says that they need to look outside the 8 x 11 piece of paper, iversity and balance and everything else is not a piece of paper. She says that if people like Rhodes Conway were there in the 60s we might be where we want to be now, but has to say that third substitute has created an education that might not otherwise have occurred. Made people wake up and look at it. The only way we can be successful is if the city finds a way to buy in. She talks about the first traditional neighborhood that was built on the periphery and asked which comes first rooftops ore businesses. How can we plan transportation if we can’t get metro to neighborhoods. Can’t do it on the backs of developers, we need to recreate a sustainable neighborhood, but can’t do it on the backs of the people who lay out the lots. They need buy in from people who buy houses, use streets, etc. Thanks others.
OX CARTS & PROSTITUTES
Pham-Remmele says that when she looks at this item the thing that stands out is that we are looking at the wrong factor – miles driven, because for her, even if the cars are not being driven, but stuck in traffic, that car is still polluting. Should look at the time. That would be more effective way to look at the problem. Glad that SRC mentioned LA, no one wants to drive there, people become antsy, but doesn’t change anything. Transportation is a failure, only low income people ride the bus in LA and it became unsafe. People still drive and drop off their kids at school. Can’t blame them because of record winters here. High School students drive cars. So talking about ideal things. When she used to work downtown, every morning was very stressful cuz don’t know how to get out of Verona road bottleneck. Looks at resolution and debate and she sees a big waste of time, but time is the most precious commodity and that is for everybody. Kids need car to drive to job after school. Are we tackling the right thing? She reads something from a constituent who says that we tried to prevent cars from coming downtown and we built buildings built without parking, designed streets to obstruct cars – businesses moved out, street prostitutes moved in. She said we should waste time shoving programs down peoples throat, metro not efficient, transfers take hours, best effort should be put into how to improve access to public transportation to outer suburbs. This is feel good, don’t see how we pat our back and feel wonderful about it. Do we want to add to our reputation around the country. Should try to improve, so that people will make sensible choices. She points out that people don’t go to farmers market on a bike or ox drive cart or carrying corn on their back. Most of the people selling at farmers market are not local. People drive and park all around the square. We are not buying local. Talks about Verona Road and pollution and uncivilized, aggressive pushy drivers who take short cuts through neighborhoods and create safety problems. Need practical way, not solutions like this.
Palm wryly notes, that yes, “time is precious”. He adds an amendment to add metro to list of staff. Amendment is accepted as friendly.
Schumacher says that he is on plan commission with Sundquist, says supportive as long as not prescriptive. Supports 3rd version. Talks about marketing and how when he named one of his seminars “how to create a better workplace” no one came, but when he labeled it “how to deal with nasty people” people showed up. Taking on cars and trying to reduce cars driven miles won’t work, need to talk about improving choices in transportation. Buses and bike path. Don’t put in the solution and make us a laughing stock. He says his constituents are wondering what his is smoking. He thinks this is moving in a good direction. He says they nmight come up with the same solutions. Access should be the message, not going after car drivers. We want businesses that locate here to attract people who come in cars, but a regional trans system might be good too.
Rummel asks when comp plan will be amended. Olinger says that larger amendments have been talked about, but won’t happen before end of year with zoning code rewrite? Will this be in staff report at plan? Olinger says that yes, it should.
Rummel says that she supports it, but her constituents thinks that the built environment forces people to have cars and that’s not about blaming people, This takes us a step forward, for her the comfort is that on Jan 15 of 2010 they get the report and she moves to amend it so that the council would get that too. Friendly.
Bidar-Sielaff, after some really loud feedback problems with her mic thanks others for spending hours this afternoon to work on the substitute. Didn’t drive til 25, she understands importance of good transportation system and other means to get places and its important to have incremental steps. Madison approach is important, but it should also be regional. Need to increase efficiency of other means of transportation. Doesn’t want to get rid of cars, but use them less. Supportive of spirit of the previous version, this is where we are at now. Hopefully this will guide us in our discussion. Bidar Sielaff also encouraged Pham-Remmele to bring her own practical solutions to the table if she thinks that is what we need.
Clear says thanks to Sundquist for pointing out the traffic report that he hadn’t seen before. He finds it fascinating that traffic counts are down in all areas in the last 5 years, except bikes which are up.
Schumacher says that district likes less car travel, but outer ring can’t do whatt 6th district can because they don’t have the same transportation options. Not there yet to tell people to tell them that 25% should leave their cars behind. Those who believe that can make the choice on their own. He challenges Mayor Dave to offer 25% reduction in miles he travels in the next year. Schumacher says he couldn’t live without a car in the city.
Mayor Dave says his name isn’t on the resolution.
Motion passes with a few audible “nos” which I believe were Sanborn and Pham-Remmele.
[NOTE: How many of the people complaining about the buses have not been supportive of Madison Metro come budget time?]
INTRODUCTION OF NEW ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Clear introduces the Plastic Bag Recycling Program to be referred to Board of Estimates, says it is in legistar if you want to take a look.
Mayor says happy birthday to Alder Kerr (who is absent) and the President.
Skidmore announces Station 12 is up and operational – except for the county communications system.
Schumacher expresses condolences to long time city employee Hickory Hurie on the passing of his wife.
Compton does as well.
Mayor suggests they stand for a moment of silence.
Clear reminds them of the council discussion about the library on Thursday.
Mayor reminds people about the budget hearings.
Then, they adjourn!
[I feel shades of the county board creeping in, perhaps I shouldn’t have blogged that part of the county board meetings . . . ]
