Posts
One thing about writing a blog is that you start to feel obliged to post items even when you don't really feel like it. So it is with this week's city council. For a variety of reasons I find myself a bit discouraged by the whole experience, but onward!
After about an hour of closed session discussion, the council approved starting the process to establish a new TIF covering the mobile home park (it's actually already in a TIF, but this allows the repayments to be stretched out) and also authorized the mayor to start negotiating with Kevin Metcalfe on a developer's agreement. I voted for it and it passed 5-1 (Alder Wiswell voting nay). I am constrained in what I can say at this point given the ongoing negotiations. We did get a commitment that assistance to the tenants will be part of the developers agreement - probably not much different than what has been on the table already.
The big news was that the Johnses came to their senses and extended the deadline for the tenants to remove to May 1. The March 1 deadline was going to kill the project, in my estimation. What's the saying about success having many fathers (refrain from Anna Nicole Smith baby comments)? And it is probably true that a number of forces cause this change. I'd like to think the resolution offered by Alder McKeever and myself was the initial impetus, but I know the mayor and, apparently, Alder Wiswell, also acted after the problem was highlighted.
The council also awarded the construction bid to Stevens Construction for the shelter after approving the changes suggested by the Parks Board and shaved about $35,000 off the cost.
The proposal for canoe/kayak racks was referred back to Parks Board. This has been one of those discouraging experiences. I suspect the racks will be approved ultimately, but only after fine-toothed nitpicking. An almost xenophobic dislike or distrust of 'outsiders' was on display. I have brought some controversial proposals forward, but I didn't think this was one of them. As has happened so often with this council, new ideas are treated like objects of fear that ought to be quarantined until a blue-ribbon panel of venerable worthies can be called in to review the odd little creature.
Alder Kugle was a notable exception to this attitude. Sensing the way the discussion was going he promptly devised specific changes to the proposal. Kudos to him.
Due to the late hour new items were put off to the next meeting, so the domestic partner health insurance proposal will be on for a first reading at the March 5 meeting.
A behind the scenes storm is brewing over why we can't seem to clear snow from the Winnequah Park lagoon. It's hard for me to explain to people why the snow wasn't cleared when the temp is below freezing for some three solid weeks.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The paper said something like Wiswell voted no because he didn't think there was enough assurance the residents would be adequatley compensated. Is that accurate? If so, that's a complete reversal from his previous position when he was very adamant this was not with in the city's scope of responsiblity.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You post on the council meeting and not a word about the Badger loss? Now that's a dedicated servant!!
ReplyDeleteAlderman Wiswell was speaking about compesation from the current owners, not the city.
ReplyDeleteyes, I know that. the question is whether he feels there was not enough assurance that the owners/developers were going to adequantely compensate the residents. Two weeks ago, he did not feel it was the city's business to concern itself with whether or not the owner/developer would compensate the residents.
ReplyDeleteI will bite-why in the name of Monona can't we seem to find a way to clear snow of the lagoon-so we can enjoy what makes this place great?
ReplyDeleteWiswell is pandering - originally he was pandering to his lake front friends - the "don't spend a dime on anyone else but me" group - and then, after the outpouring of support for the hickory lanes residents he switched sides to pander to everyone else. Now there is not enough assistance! he moans. This was NEVER about city assistance, this was always about making sure that those profiting from City TIF funding didn't leave the residents out in the cold.
ReplyDelete"The paper said something like Wiswell voted no because he didn't think there was enough assurance the residents would be adequatley compensated. Is that accurate?"
ReplyDeleteNo, he stated he thought the Johnses - rather than the developer - should be paying money to the tenants and he 'did not like the way the deal was structured'.
"I will bite-why in the name of Monona can't we seem to find a way to clear snow of the lagoon-so we can enjoy what makes this place great?"
ReplyDeleteAs best as I can figure it, the city crew has fallen through the ice several times using the 1200-pound piece of equipment they use to clear the snow. So, a 12" ice rule was instituted and the ice hasn't been 12" thick.
I pointed out to the city administrator that we seemed to have developed a protocol that prevented us from ever clearing the ice. His response was to accuse me of saying the staff didn't 'want' to clear the snow!
Of course he missed the point entirely. My point was we need to figure out another way to clear the ice that doesn't require 12' thick ice.
Alder McKeever later found an Army Corps of Engineer web site indicating that lesser thicknesses would be adequate.
But, figuring out exactly how it should be done is not our job as alders - staff is supposed to figure out how to get it done and then do it. I am hopeful that our brand new city engineer/DPW Rich Vela will get a handle on this and many other issues give a little time.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteThank you for comment and insights about the ice.
I have very much enjoyed going their and skating.
Yet, insn't your job to make sure you are understood And make sure the staff "git'er done."
Again, keep fighting-love to have the lagoon back for skating.
Re: the ice, see my new post. As an alder I can ask, complain, and inquire, but I can't tell the staff what to do. That's the city administrator's job in the first instance and the Mayor's job if that fails.
ReplyDeletewe desperately need a new city administrator. it seems that all frustrating roads lead back to him. we need a real leader in that position.
ReplyDelete