Fourth and final live blogging missive: Price says, "Here's the problem that I got." Ain't it the truth.

Ordinances and Resolutions

R-10-01 Coyle TIF

Benedetti defends the TIF area inclusion for Coyle and rebuts McLaughlin's (and Price's) claim that no one on the council initiated the idea. Coffey denies that he heard anything while seated on the Plan Commission; Benedetti disagrees.

She now is outlining the importance of the property.

Coffey now offers "my synopsis" of the situation. Coffey says that if Coyle could be purchased through the TIF "no problem with it." When the county said it didn't care, he quit going to meetings because he is opposed to money coming fomo other funds.

Obstructionist norms are being met and exceeded.

Benedetti again speaks the obvious: It's an important part of downtown irrespective of use. And, the same council people who oopse spending are telling people that there is sufficient EDIT monies to do other projects. They presumably should be consistent.

Malayz: Many possibilities. Critical piece of downtown real estate. Discussions about buildings, whether it should be cleared or preserved ... never a decision on the exact form of redevelopment, but the staff was requested to do legwork with appraisals and potential acquisition. If we don't identify the property as potentially do-able, it passes by and the current work in getting it ready cannot be funded. And: At least pass the resolution to keep the ball rolling to get to the point of seeing what the appraisals show.

Again and again: You are not voting for a done deal. You are voting to establish the preconditions for some future deal to be done.

McLaughlin: Was the committee formed by the council? Yes.

Malayz: Operating in good faith and in limbo now, with redevelopment commission doing what it can to keep it moving pending something happening.

Coffey denies being on redevelopment during the time that any of this was discussed. Probably denies appointing himself to it. Does remember voting against a few things, like Hoosier Panel.

Caesar: Why can't redevelopment cut a check for the appraisal?

Malayz: Because it is not in the TIF district, it can't qualify. It's just making it possible to consider it in the future.

Price: "Here's the problem that I got."
"Is it the best way to go for their money?"
"Do you all ever wonder when we're going to be taped out?"
"We fixed Spring Street Hill, how much did that cost?"
Price starts free-form association with any and all expenditures before the council. "This and this and this."

Benedetti: "This is just putting it in the TIF area."

Messer: It's an investment.

Price: "Some people question Spring Street hill."

Messer: "We're not talking about Spring Street hill ... a good example is the YMCA."

Price: "I think it's great ... but I didn't approve of the funding."

Gahan: If just to expand a TIF area, why the language implying that it WILL be purchased. Malayz says you can delete that language if you wish. He only added it as an attempt at clarification.

Benedetti: Been working on this for seven months. "It needs to go forward, or be done."

JAY-sus.

Motion to strike the 3rd paragraph passes unanimously.

All in favor except ... Price.

He is a civic embarrassment.

G-10-01 Individual Resident Only Parking Permits, 1st and 2nd

Benedetti says she has looked into it, and is willing to send it to committee. Would not cause police to enforce unless someone violates it, then the permit holder can call and have them towed. She's had other calls about day cares in neighborhoods causing problems with parking. Do we have rules for that going beyond the state's?

Messer: The police would have to investigate and write the ticket. 20-ft probably is a problem.

Price: "An extra $15,000 is definitely not nickels and dimes."

Bizarrely, Price supports it.

Scott Wood: Provides erudite background on day cares. A series of day cares is different than when it is operated in the home.

McLaughlin: Now people have more than one vehicle.

Chief Crabtree would have loved to be consulted before it comes up.

KZ: So many issues -- fire hydrants, duplexes, frontages ... should go to committee.

Caesar: Who gets the money?

IF REVENUE IS THE OBJECT, HOW MUCH WOULD RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION BRING INTO THE CITY? HOW MUCH WOULD OTHER CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT MEASURES BRING IN?

1st reading

For: all except ...
Against: KZ, JoG

2nd reading - same result.

Now off to committee.

Z-10-01 Robert Lynn zoning, 1st and 2nd

Favorable recommendation from Plan Commission.

Gahan: Questions about two lots that are shown being in the flood plain. What are they?

Wood: Outlines the plan. It's in the two-mile fringe area. Flood elevations, sewer easements, no-build line. Narrow slivers buildable, the rest retained in vegetative state, meaning (I believe) that the flood plain stays as is. Also a retention basin.

Coffey begins tracing drainage, working his way toward Prosser and eventually the Mississippi Valley drainage basin, which Coffey studied once at Bazooka Joe U.

Gahan wants to guarantee restrictive language, but Wood says it already is there.

1st reading - Coffey and Caesar no, the rest say yes.
2nd reading - same results

Z-09-10 Neace-Sprigler, 3rd reading

Corner of Green Valley and Daisy -- the medical office doing temporary (?) duty as furniture sales.

3rd reading - yes all the way around the board.

One hour 38 minutes. Out.