►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
Right-
and
I
was
trying
to
get
the
chief
into
to
ask-
you
know-
have
him
brief
us
was
unable
to
do
that,
but
we
did.
It
was
a
part
of
our
leadership
conversation
and
the
mayor
assured
us
that
they
were
prepared
in
you
know,
working
in
conjunction
with
our
the
federal
agencies,
the
state
police
that
they
they
they
were
ready
and
willing
to
protect
our
residents
in
our
neighborhoods
so
that
they
come
up.
A
A
A
Okay
and
then
moving
on
to
consideration
of
local
laws
for
introductions,
that's
local
law,
a
of
2021..
It
says
oh
yeah
2020,
but
it
should
be
2021
and
actually
on
all
the
other
documents
relating
to
it.
It
says
2021,
so
that's
and
that
will
be
an
introduction
by
mr
conte
and
it
will
be
a
referral
to
council
operations.
B
Yeah
this
is
this:
is
a
charter
amendment,
so
it
would
if
it
were
to
be
adopted,
it
would
have
to
go
before
the
voters
that
adopted
via
referendum
and
what
it
does.
It
just
provides
that
municipal
elections,
elections
for
city
offices
be
done
on
a
non-partisan
basis,
as
opposed
to
a
political
basis,
which
is
what
the
majority
of
cities
around
the
country
do
and
it
you
know.
B
I
think
it's
something
that's
worthy
of
some
discussion
it
would.
It
would
expand
the
electorate
in
a
sense
because
you'd
be
having
elections
in
november
rather
than
at
a
primary,
but
it
would
enfranchise
in
a
sense,
more
voters,
and
it
also
recognizes
that
a
lot
of
voters,
especially
younger
people
and
others,
do
not
register
in
a
political
party
and
therefore
they're,
really
not
enfranchised
in
a
way
to
participate,
and
so
that's
what
it
would
do.
B
A
D
D
Council,
member
kim
bro
council
member
flynn,
council,
member
o'brien,
council,
member
fahey,
council,
member
hoey,
council
member
igo,
council
member
love,
council,
member
ballerin,
council,
member,
frederick
council
member
dochette,
council
member
johnson,
councilmember
farrell
and
from
president
ellis
from
staff.
It's
myself:
brett
williams,
danielle
gillespie
and
michelle
andre
okay.
G
The
order,
if
I
can
just
jump
in
I've,
noted
this
to
the
leadership
and
to
staff
that
anytime
we're
discussing
anything
having
to
do
with
appointments
to
the
planning
board.
I
am
recusing
myself
so
to
the
extent
that
we
need
to
cut
me
out
of
that.
I
can
also
walk
away
from
my
screen,
but
then
it
becomes
hard
for
me
to
know
when
them
should
be
back.
G
D
A
H
H
Ideally
they'd,
be
staggered
so
that
there's
two
appointments
over
the
appointments
would
take
place
over
a
three
year
period,
two
in
one
year,
two
in
the
second
year
three
in
the
third
year,
as
it
sits
right
now.
I
think
we
have
one
person
whose
term
would
expire
in
2022
and
then
in
working
with
the
mayor's
office,
and
I
think
councilmember
conti
arrived
at
a
similar
conclusion.
H
The
difficulty
is
that,
under
the
code,
the
mayor,
the
language
is
something
to
be
effective.
The
mayor
shall
appoint
for
a
three-year
term,
which
really
doesn't
leave
a
lot
of
leeway
for
the
mayor
to
appoint
for
anything
other
than
a
three-year
term.
So,
in
order
to
get
everything
back
on
track
and
to
allow
the
mayor
to
appoint
just
for
a
two-year
term
in
this
single
one-off
instance,
this
ordinance
will
authorize
her
to
do
so.
A
I
I
B
I
B
A
A
J
When
this
point
has
been
raised
to
the
planning
director,
because
they
basically
discounted
that
anthony
street
was
part
of
the
park
and
granted
this
developer
access
to
anthony
street
for
his
commercial
project,
which,
if
anthony
street,
is
dedicated
to
the
park,
the
planning
board
had
no
such
authority
to
do
that,
and
they
were
put
on
notice
of
that.
But
they
went
ahead
anyway.
J
K
J
What
we
think
is
the
error
of
this
decision,
and
I
would
also
note
another
interesting
thing
was
I
got
the
decision
today
and
it
has
one
of
the
members
who
was
absent
from
the
whole
proceeding
as
voting
yes
in
favor
of
the
development
and
another
member
who
was
there
listed
as
absent.
So
some
of
this,
I
guess,
can
be
attributed
just
to
pure
sloppiness,
but
I
think
some
of
it
is
bad
policy,
that's
being
implemented
from
the
top
of
the
planning
department,
and
everybody
just
goes
along
with
it.
So.
E
A
A
B
Right
and
this
just
puts
into
code
the
existing
boundaries
also,
I
did
reach
out
and
had
got
some
information
from
assembly
member
fede's
office.
Today
they
have
submitted
the
rule
bill
that
we
had
last
year.
They
have
resubmitted
that
they
don't
have
a
number
yet,
but
I'm
expecting
that
we
will
have
something
back
on
that
shortly,
hopefully,
and
be
able
to
look
at
the
home
rule
resolution
on
that,
but
that
that
is
in
the
in
the
works
and
that
bill
has
been
submitted
for
reintroduction.
B
A
J
D
K
A
A
For
resolutions
well,
these
are
all
miss
phase
and
planning
so
resolution
512
and
6
12
21
are
reappointments
to
the
planning
board.
There's
a
planning
meeting
coming
up
on
the
19th,
where
those
will
be
will
be
reviewed.
So
it's
a
referral
to
planning
for
those
two
and
the
next
three
12
21
8,
12,
21
and
9
12
21
are
reappointments
to
the
bza
and
that
also
will
be
taken
up
at
the
planning
meeting
on
the
19th.
G
A
M
M
K
A
A
D
I
And
it's
just
basically,
it
seems
like
they're
dragging
their
feet.
There
was
an
original
agreement
made
back
in
2017.
I
put
all
the
details
in
the
the
resolution,
so
you
can
read
it.
This
is
something
you
can.
Google,
you
just
google
exit,
3
and
put
in
tribal
nation
and
there's
a
bunch
of
newspaper
stories
about
it.
I
did
talk
to
the
tribal
chief
out
in
in
wisconsin.
I
believe
that
they're
located
now
and
you
know
they
offered
them.
I
Oh
we'll
give
you
we'll
build
this
for
you
we'll
do
that.
But,
like
I
said
in
resolution,
this
is
you
know
we
have
a
long
history
in
this
country
of
ignoring
treaties
or
agreements
with
the
tribal
nations,
and
I
I
think
it's
time
that
somebody
stands
up
and
says
you
know
this
was
agreed
on.
They
paid
for
the
murals
they're
ready
to
go
up.
Let's
just
do
what
was
agreed
to
so
that's.
Basically,
it.
F
F
A
I
Number
one
the
city
owned
that
airport
and
it
was
you,
know,
corning
sold
it
off.
I
heard
we
should
have
hung
on
because
there's
a
lot
of
revenue
there
you
know
as
a
council,
I
I
think
we
should
support
it.
There's
enough
newspaper
articles
about
it,
department
of
transportation,
isn't
responding,
it's
it's
a
bureaucracy,
as
you
know
joe,
I
mean,
but
that's
a
as
it
is.
A
I
A
Okay,
so
thank
you.
Jr
put
the
the
resolution
together,
it's
gonna
be
an
emcee
for
our
meeting,
so
members
will
have
a
chance
to
review
it.
Please
please
take
a
look
at
that
and
decide
if
you
want
to
sign
on
or
not
that's
probably
the
best
way
to
do
it
at
this
point.
So
we
can.
We
can
move
forward.
Otherwise,
that's
that's
the
end
of
the
agenda.
Yeah.
D
B
C
A
C
The
planning
committee
meets
on
tuesday.
We
have
the
rio,
the
two
reappointments,
but
also
we're
going
over
the
technical
amendments
to
the
usdo
the
proposed-
and
I
just
want
to
let
everyone
know
michelle
just
sent
out
links
to
a
couple
of
drafts
of
the
of
the
technical
amendments,
one's
a
draft.
That's
got
a
majority
of
the
corrections
and
then
the
other
one
is
a
clean
copy
for
you
to
take
a
look
at
and
there's
been
some
confusion
about
getting
hard
copies
of
this
draft
to
everybody.
C
So
I
have
requested
that
the
committee
members
get
hard
copies
and
I
think
richard
you
wanted
one
and
if
anybody
else
feels
the
need
to
but
take
a
look
at
them.
These
are
the
technical
amendments
for
monday.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
confusion
here.
I
know
everybody's
very
anxious
to
get
a
copy
of
the
usdo.
Michelle
reminded
me
that
you
know
this
council
has
never
received
a
copy,
so
we're
trying
to
figure
that
all
out
and
at
what
point
we
should
you
know,
have
have
these
bound
copies
made.
F
C
Well,
it's
you
know
actually
judy
had
requested
a
different
document
judy
and
richard-
and
I
was
you
know
fine
with
that
they
wanted
the
copy
without
the
red
lining
and
the
copy
that
we
received
was
with
the
red
line.
You
know
showing
all
the
errors
and
it's
not
a
complete
copy.
I'm
just
gonna
say
that
there's
some
additional
corrections
that
aren't
on
the
copy.
C
F
C
C
A
I
G
Well,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
for
people
a
number
of
things,
so
the
red
line
version
that
they
made
a
hard
copy
of
which
richard
and
I
specifically
said
until
we
have
it
verified
that
they
until
that's
corrected
to
show
all
the
changes.
It's
really
not
a
particularly
helpful
document
and
brad
and
amy.
G
There
are
a
lot
of
places
where
it's
just
not
appropriately
redlined
line,
they've
taken
out
old,
section
citations
without
striking
through
showing
them
and
striking
through
there
are
places
where
it
looks
like
a
footnote,
is
all
new
footnote
when,
indeed
it's
only
partially
reworded
for
clarity's
sake,
and
then
there
are
actually
some
substantive
changes
that
they
made
like.
With
regard
to,
I
found
one
instance
where
there
was
a
setback,
a
change
in
the
setback
requirements
when
we
were
told
that
this
is
just
correcting
typographical
errors
and
section
errors.
G
G
K
J
C
Well,
it
absolutely
is
frustrating,
but
we've
got
to
decide
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
you
know,
stop
dead
in
the
water
here
or
or
move
forward.
Somehow,
so
we've
got
to
come
up
with
some
kind
of
some
kind
of
plan
to
move
forward
that
people
agree
to.
So,
as
everyone
can
see,
it's
a
little
it's
a
little
controversial.
C
E
E
E
C
F
B
B
B
E
I
guess
my
naiveness
is
saying:
why
can't
we
do
both
at
the
same
time?
You
know,
since
you
know,
we've
given
the
planning
department,
for
you
bring
us
something
they
haven't
brought
us
nothing.
Why?
Why
don't
we
look
at
the
whole,
we
take
it
in
pieces
and
look
at
the
document
again
and
then
maybe
they'll
come
and
talk
to
us
about
it
if
it
was
looking
at
making
some
actual
changes.
A
M
I
think
it's
actually
a
much
better
idea
for
us
to
be
able
to
deal
with
it
in
e-code,
because
one
of
the
issues
is
looking
at
substantive
changes
in
it.
Looking
at
the
document
that
we
have
now
versus
so
moving
the
entire
format,
changing
the
format
and
looking
at
substance
changes
it's
going
to
be
an
absolute
nightmare,
so
I
actually
advocated
to
the
planning
department
to
just
switch
it
into
e-code.
M
Do
no
changes,
I
don't
even
care
if
there's
grammatical
errors,
leave
it,
as
is
don't
touch
a
darn
thing
and
just
move
it
into
e
code,
so
we
don't
have
to
go
through
it.
The
only
thing
that's
changing
is
formatting,
and
then
we
can
look
at
changes
they
wanted
to
do.
They
wanted
to
do
grammatical
changes,
but
again
the
concerns,
especially
that
we've
had
with
planning
is.
Are
these
actually
grammatical
changes?
You
have
to
start?
M
No
then
we
still
have
to
go
through
it
instead
of
just
changing
it,
the
formatting,
so
we
actually
can
look
from
one
to
the
other
and
just
look
across
the
two
documents,
as
opposed
to
fishing
through
one
from
the
other,
because
the
formatting
is
totally
different,
so
I
definitely
recommend
changing
formatting.
So
it's
easier
to
look
at
those,
especially
the
substantive
changes
between
the
two
documents.
E
Okay,
I
guess
my
only
fear
is
and
and
I'm
I'm
just
being
vague
and
I'll-
be
quiet
after
this
we've
got
five
senior
council
members
that
have
been
here.
You
know
for
that,
have
a
wealth
of
knowledge
of
how
this
got
passed
and-
and
I
just
don't
want
to
lose-
that
institutional
knowledge
and
and
and
when
we
go
through
this-
and
you
know
so
and
to
be
honest,
who
knows
how
things
may
shake
up
in
general.
E
M
A
G
So
I
you
know
clearly
one
option
we
can
do
is
just
go
ahead
and
adopt
it
and
then,
with
renumbering
and
and
like
jenny,
says
not
care,
whether
or
not
there's
continues
to
be
the
grammatical
errors
etc.
The
the
the
one
concern
that
I
have
is
to
what
extent
are
there
substantive
changes
embedded
in
the
document
that
have
not
been
called
to
their
to
our
attention?
So
it's
being
billed
essentially
as
a
as
a
renumbering.
G
G
G
I
would
really
like
the
leadership
and
kathy
to
ask
brad
to
go
through
the
document
and
tell
us
that
kind
of
thing,
because
this
was
something
when
I
brought
it
to
his
attention.
He
says:
oh
well,
yeah.
I
see
your
point
and
again
I
said
you
know
I
don't
care
so
much
that
you've
made
that
particular
decision,
but
then
that
is
something
that
should
be,
in
all
fairness,
flagged
to
the
common
council.
C
D
J
A
L
A
And
and
so
if
we
go
ahead
and
do
this
change
in
numbering
and
we're
not
working
off
of
that
very
first
version
of
it,
then
whatever
changes
he
made
are
going
to
be
buried
once
once
we
adopt
it.
So
we
need
to
to
get
with
him
or
have
a
conversation
with
him
about
going
back
and
and
to
the
original
version.
A
I
Yeah-
and
you
know
my
concern
numbering
is,
is
one
thing,
but
when
we
start
changing
words
and
that's
what
our
job
is
is
to
develop
wording
for
laws.
When
you
start
changing
words,
you
can
affect
the
legal
meaning.
So
I'm
very
very
concerned
I'd
like
to
know,
and
my
I
guess
I
have
a
question:
if
they
are
changing
words,
don't
we
get
to
see
the
old
and
then
the
new
before
we
vote
on
it?
B
Yeah,
that's
why
judy
is
suggesting
that,
instead
of
trying
to
adopt
a
redline
version,
which
would
be
you
know,
ordinarily,
you
know
a
strike
and
insert
new
language
that
we
do.
We
just
repeal
the
entire
usdo
and
adopt
the
the
finalized
version
without
the
need
to
go
through
a
strike
and
repeat
strike
and
insert
type
thing.
But
we
have
to
be
comfortable
that
the
document
we
are
adopting
is
what
it
is
in
terms
of
technical
changes
and
not
substantive
policy.
B
C
I
I
If
I
won't
vote
for
it
to
go
out
unless
we
know
exactly
what
we're
voting
on,
I
mean
that's
the
problem
that
happened
originally,
that
there
was
a
lot
of
pressure
put
on
the
council-
and
I
wasn't
here
this
is
your
say
on
my
part,
but
I
heard
it
was
like
kind
of
fourth,
while
the
council's
ending.
We
need
to
get
this
through
and
let's
just
pass
it.
C
A
K
Right
and
so
so,
if
kelly
god
can,
I
say
something:
yes,
I've
been
listening
about
this
document
for
three
years.
I
agree
with
tom
every
time.
Every
time
it
comes
up,
people
start
cutting
us
off.
Like
I
heard
what
was
said
when
we
first
came
on,
it
was
said
that
the
document
was
rushed
through
through
the
last
council,
and
this
council
has
yet
to
put
their
physical
eyes
on
it,
and
it
just
seems
like
that's
what
the
the
residents
were
complaining
about
about
the
usdo
we
should
be.
K
G
I
I
take
issue
sometimes
when
the
comment
is
made,
that
what
one
person
thinks
is
substantive
or
what
one
person
reading
of
the
law
is,
you
know,
can
be
different
than
another's
persons.
So,
with
regard
to
what
I'm
talking
about
as
being
a
substantive
change,
brad
essentially
has
acknowledged
that
he
has
changed
in
some
places.
G
The
setback
number
the
actual
number
being
used
the
number
of
feet
in
some
places.
There
was
an
inconsistency
he
picked
up
on
the
inconsistency
he
is
the
person
then
making
the
decision
as
to
which
number
we're
now
going
to
use
it.
It
shouldn't
be
program
staff
that
is
doing
that
without
alerting
the
council
members.