I was going to type “Yawn, do they do anything any more” about half way into the less than an hour meeting, but I salvaged a few points.
Doing this from memory, didn’t re=watch this morning.
Affordable housing for the Northside
Anita Weier is concerned about affordable housing being concentrated on the northside, but the project isn’t in her district, just near it. She asks multiple questions about planning staff and police originally being against the affordable housing. Captain Jay Lengfeld was opposed, I didn’t hear what happened off mic, but it sounded like the police are no longer opposed . . .hmmmmm.
Larry Palm, who represents the area the housing will be in said he preferred to see infill development. He also referred to this as workforce housing and said that is what the area needed. He attempted to ask staff about the difference between Section 8 and Section 42 Housing. The Director of Community Development (Jim O’Keefe) explained that section 8 subsidizes rents, while Section 42 is a tax credit for developers. Palm was looking for a different answer, so he asked again, And Steve Cover, Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development just repeated what O’Keefe said. Alder Lisa Subeck bailed Palm out by explaining that Section 8 is normally people at 30% of the area median income (very or extremely low income), while Section 42 is people at 60% or even 80% of the area median income (moderate income). Palm described it as police officers and nurses. The 72 unit apartment units as well as the funding passed the council with support for a neighbor and Northside Business Association as well as developer and non-profit staff.
Should the Sustainability Committee give input on TIF policy?
David Ahrens asked for the TIF policy to be referred not just to CCOC but to the sustainability committee. It was a reconsideration at the end of the meeting. There were concerns that it would further delay the policy but Chris Schmidt explained that it would be taken up at CCOC on Feb 4th and the following meeting the mayor and another alder would be gone so it would be delayed until March 4, so there was time. Others thought it would be a waste of time to refer it to them, they didn’t want to waste their time. They seemed to think they had it handled and didn’t need their advice. (Bidar and Cheeks) Others thought it was important to get their input because it was a specialized area. (Rummel) Schmidt explained that committees could give input through the alder on that committee by having them put it on the agenda and the alder offering an amendment. It didn’t get referred to Sustainability Committee – the Mayor Dave approach to citizen input was upheld by 8 or 9 people on the council – they actually did a roll call vote.
Everything else passed as noted on the agenda or the consent agenda.
Like I said. Yawn.
