Hello, Neighbors! Thanks for tuning in for the first alderman blog post of the new council year! This week, all of the aldermen for odd-numbered districts will begin a new term with a swearing-in ceremony and informal (and formal) organizational meetings. The full council meeting this week will be the first for a couple of new alderman and… let’s just say “not the first” for your alderman.
There is one resolution regarding council member attendance on the table for discussion and potential approval. It states that if any council member incurs three unexcused absences from any council/committee meetings, that alderman will forfeit his/her committee assignments for the council year. This resolution came forward due to the repeated non-participation — and non-prenotification of anticipated absences (meaning: unexcused absences) — of one particular alderman in council/committee meetings. I understand the reason for this resolution; but I doubt that the verbiage in this resolution will solve the problem it is meant to address. If an alderman cares so little about participating in council business, he/she will not care if he/she is removed completely from the work of a committee! There should instead be pressure put on by the constituents of a non-participating alderman. But unless you’re paying attention, how are you to know if you are being properly represented by your alderman? (I hope that your regular reading of these blog posts assures you that your district is being actively represented in committee and council meetings!)
Let me know your thoughts and concerns about this resolution or any of the council rules up for debate/potential amendment/approval. Last year, I attempted to institute a rule requiring proper attire for council members in attendance at committee/council meetings. My proposed rule was roundly defeated by the council at that time. Apparently, dressing appropriately — no wearing of hats/caps and a standard of at least business casual attire — is not important to the majority of members of the council. Some of us, though, still do attempt to dress appropriately when representing you in city meetings regardless of whether there is a formal council rule in that regard.
- From the Municipal Services Committee: The seemingly late-in-the-game request for a two-parking-stall loading zone in front of the new Trout Museum on College Avenue was approved on a six-month trial basis by this committee last week. I am still concerned about the way that this all “went down.” The new building for the Trout Museum (which includes some apartments and Lawrence University space) has been in the works for months. Yet seemingly minutes before it is ready to open, this request for a loading zone which will take up prime parking space on College Avenue shows up for approval. Someone missed an excellent opportunity to build community in that area by waiting this long to bring this forward and not alerting neighboring businesses to the plan. And I feel for them. However, during the committee discussions, some evidence from the city’s traffic engineers was presented showing that there are regularly open parking spots available along that block of College Avenue during all times of the day. So, this six-month trial should, in theory, make it evident to neighboring businesses that the loading zone parking should not stifle their ability to draw patrons. I’ll be interested to hear the feedback at the end of this trial period to see what real-life impact has been felt with this.
- From the Safety and Licensing Committee: Two items that were brought before this committee at last week’s meeting are up for denial by the full council — 1) a liquor license for an establishment at 122 W Wisconsin Avenue that has a long history of illegal activity (in Wisconsin and in Minnesota) and has not, in the past, been a good neighbor in this mixed residential/business area of the city and 2) a change of agent request on a current liquor license for a business in which the currently listed agent is now (or was recently) incarcerated for alcohol-related charges and there were some irregularities in the agent change paperwork submitted. See here more information regarding the latter and here for more of what was discussed regarding the former. I am in agreement with both denials as liquor licensure is a privilege in the city and comes with a high bar of requiring proper paperwork and a clean (or at least clean-ish) record of the license holder/agent.
- From the City Plan Commission: Without much discussion or fanfare, the commission last week recommended for approval a large annexation to the city — the Dorn property on the east side of Richmond Street just south of CTH JJ — and the proposed pavilion coming to Lundgaard Park soon. See here for more information on the proposed pavilion design and placement.