RAINY DAYS AND STEAMROLLERS

COMMUNITY DAY: WET WEATHER, HIGH SPIRITS

The incessant rain had some of the scattered crowd in attendance at the city's recent "Community Day" fondly recalling the city’s former 3 day Home Days celebration---which because of its duration had a better shot of residents enjoying at least one day of good weather.

Despite all of the very hard work put in by the organizing committee--reflected in this year’s nice variety of activities and exhibitors----the replacement 1 day Community Day proved a weather disappointment---again.
Last year it was unbearably hot.
This year it rained until dinnertime.

But the weather finally cleared, and the fireworks were great.

Here are a couple of snapshots from the day.

SPAN special response vehicles on display

The petting zoo animals were a bit lonely in the afternoon

Probably the only ones that didn't notice the rain: the Mayfield Swim Team

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Background

Council meetings are held twice a month (every other week).
Council Committee of the Whole (discussion only) meetings are also held twice a month, alternating with the Council meetings.
Council, Committee of the Whole and other committee (i.e. Safety & Service Committee) meetings are public meetings, open to the public.
With rare exceptions, all city business is supposed to be discussed in public.

Council is supposed to hears 3 readings of every piece of legislation before voting.

The Issue

Here is the history of 2 pieces of legislation that Council recently considered.
Draw your own conclusions...

Compare

March 23, 2013 Council meeting.

Discussion of a resolution to regulate the feeding of wildlife begins…
after a resident shares his concern about a neighbor’s habit of feeding deer.

President Cathy Murphy refers the matter to Council’s Safety & Service Committee (SSC).

• The SSC discusses the resolution at a public meeting at least twice (May 14^th; June 11th).

• Council discusses the proposed resolution in detail--and in public--- at a May 21st Committee of the Whole meeting.

• Police Chief Cook reports about the resolution at a May 28^th Council meeting.  

• Council hears 3 readings of Ordinance 15-2013, a “Feeding of Nuisance Animals” ordinance, on June 25^th, July 9^th and July 23^rd in public, during 3 separate Council meetings.

• Residents express concerns about the Resolution during the "public speaking" portion of the July 23^th Council meeting.

Action taken:
After listening to residents, Council decides to table the wildlife feeding resolution for further discussion after it returns from its  August recess. No vote is taken.

CONTRAST

May 14, 2013 Council meeting
Law Director Tim Paluf tells Council that he is working with Lance Osborne “regarding the former Catalano’s property”…
Paluf provides no specific details, keeping the public in the dark as to what the discussions between the city and Osborne entail.

• Paluf provides a similarly uninformative report at the June 11^th Council meeting.
  He discloses that the city has sent Osborne “a proposal,” but once again he doesn't publicly disclose any details of the proposal.

• On July 9^th Council hears a first reading of a resolution authorizing Mayor Coleman to enter into a development agreement with Osborne.
  
  Council hears a first reading even though Council members hadn't been given copies of the proposed development agreement prior to the meeting and even though the development agreement itself had not yet been finalized. 
  President Cathy Murphy tells Council members that they will be asked to vote at the next Council meeting, without hearing 3 readings of the resolution.  
  
  The proposed agreement is not distributed publicly until after the Council meeting ends, thereby preventing any public comment on the agreement at the July 9th Council meeting.

• The scheduled July 16^th Committee of the Whole meeting---Council's first opportunity to publicly discuss the resolution and proposed development agreement---is cancelled.

• Council members are given copies of the final development agreement five minutes before the July 23rd Council meeting begins.
  
• After holding a brief Committee of the Whole meeting, Council hears a 2nd reading of the resolution.
  
•  Residents address Council during the "public speaking"portion of the Council meeting.
  
  While all of them express general support for the city's efforts to get the Catalano's property redeveloped, several express specific concerns regarding some of the provisions in the development agreement.

Action Taken:
Council votes to suspend the 3rd reading and unanimously votes to authorize the mayor to sign the development agreement "as is". The vote allows the mayor to spend $800,000 of public money as part of the development deal.

Two different pieces of legislation, two different treatments.

More than one resident---after watching the Council steamroller vote to approve the development agreement---said it reminded them of the Bass Energy drilling lease fiasco.

I have to admit, they have a point. The similarities are quite startling--- the rushing forward, the deliberate withholding of information, and the manipulation of scheduling to avoid having a meaningful discussion with residents prior to the vote.

You’d think Council would have learned something from the $600,000 Bass Energy mistake….but apparently not.

MEGA GETG0 MAY BE GONE, BUT NOT THE MEGA SIGNS

One particular point of contention in the Osborne development agreement is found in Section 1(c)(i) which reads:

No pole signs will be permitted on the Property, however, monument signs in accordance with the Signage Plan previously approved by the City and attached as Exhibit F to the (prior GetGo) Development Agreement dated September 4, 2012…will be permitted upon approval thereof of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.”

This is Exhibit F:

Exhibit F drawing shows a gigantic (18’ x 5'10") monument sign.
A sign of that dimension would dwarf the signs that the city has allowed surrounding commercial property owners to erect in the Bishop/Brainard/Wilson Mills intersection area.
The "Exhibit F" monument signs also exceed the size limits allowed by the city's sign ordinance.
But apparently Council and the mayor think the signs are okay.

Law Director Tim Paluf dismissed residents' concerns about the signs, telling Council:

“ It (the sign) still has to go before P&Z (the Planning & Zoning Commission). They still have to approve it.”

Of course, P&Z is the same group that approved this sign…remember?

Now doesn’t that make us all feel better?