►
From YouTube: Rules Committee Meeting 7-17-2023
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).
A
A
B
D
A
quorum
being
present
in
the
room,
this
meeting
will
continue
with
public
comment.
We
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
what
did
I
say?
Nine
people
signed
up
for
public
comment.
Public
comment
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person.
We
will
start
with
people
in
the
room.
First
up
is
Evie
Russell,
followed
by
Mary
rosinski
and
then
Gene
Breslin.
C
C
At
Alderman
reveals
July
Community
Gathering
chair
Rogers,
encourage
residents
to
submit
comments
in
writing
rather
than
for
us
to
speak
on
Mars
at
the
commission,
but
in
2019
staff
did
not
Place
documents
and
comments
submitted
in
advance
for
the
Commission
in
the
main
packet
and
instead
buried
them
in
a
side
attachment
members
of
City
committees
did
not
even
read
this
attachment.
The
information
that
we
residents
paint
stakingly
prepared
in
advance
in
2019.
C
E
D
All
right,
Mary
rosinski,
followed
by
Gene
Breslin,
followed
by
Paul
Breslin.
F
Hi,
my
name
is
Mary
rosinski
I
live
at
1729.
Chancellor
I
also
want
to
speak
to
D1
to
your
point,
Alderman
Reed
I'm
wondering
where
this
originated,
because
I
thought
back
in
September
2022.
We
had
a
vote
of
all
you.
That
said,
you
would
that
any
policy
changes
would
have
to
be
sponsored
by
two
other
people,
and
this
seems
to
be
coming
out
of
left
field
from
staff.
F
For
no
reason,
especially
in
the
light
that
we
are
in
the
process,
we
just
paid
seven
we're
paying
750
000
to
revise
our
comprehensive
plan
and
our
zoning.
So
this
seems
like
something
you
just
should
put
in
the
file
and
just
wait
on,
but
I
have
to
say
it
also
feels
like
we
are
just
greasing
the
tracks
for
developers
to
come
in
and
have
their
Lane
to
staff
discussions,
and
all
this
and
the
residents
are
getting
a
one
lane
and
then
we
may
have
one
off
ramp
to
talk
talk
and
another
off-ramp
at
city
council.
F
But
the
problem
is:
is
that
City?
There's
no
discussion
anywhere?
I
mean
I.
Just
looked
at
the
housing
committee
meeting
for
tomorrow
and
that
committee
meeting's
been
reduced
to
15
minutes
and
this
meeting's
now
reduced
to
20
minutes
and
when
this
was
all
our
public
comment,
time
has
been
reduced
so
much
and
we're
not
having
discussions
with
the
people.
If
we,
though,
follow
our
rules
and
if
we
follow
our
planning
code,
people
won't
show
up
because
they
will
know
that
we're
following
it.
It's
all.
F
F
F
F
D
D
J
Foreign
I
ask
you
to
keep
the
current
process
in
place
so
that
enormous
developments
have
adequate
review
and
public
input.
Huge
developments
dramatically
affect
downtown
Evanston
and
Evanston
neighborhoods
council
members
and
the
mayor
who
are
elected
by
voters
must
have
accountability
and
oversight,
not
solely
the
Luc
members
who
are
appointed
by
the
mayor.
J
J
K
I
I
have
to
say
it
looks
to
me
as
if
the
rules
are
being
retro,
reverse
engineered
to
produce
a
desired
result.
That's
what
it
looks
like
from
out
here.
The
city
wants
more
Revenue.
The
city
wants
more
development,
so
whatever
has
to
be
done
to
the
rules.
To
get
that
to
happen,
the
city
will
do
ice
agree
with
two
of
the
previous
speakers
that,
concerning
the
whole
process
to
a
committee
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
with
no
input
from
our
elected
council
members
is
not
acceptable.
K
In
section
41
of
Robert's
Rules
of
Order
I
have
spent
the
last
four
days
doing
a
deep
dive
into
the
12th
edition
of
Robert's
Rules
of
Order
and
have
discovered
that
in
fact,
a
number
of
things
that
are
in
that
book
simply
were
not
followed.
In
the
June
26th
meeting,
I've
watched
the
video
of
the
relevant
portion
of
that
meeting
and
I
am
going
to
distribute
to
all
of
you
and
to
Mr
Cummings
and
to
the
planning
department.
K
L
I
want
to
speak
in
favor
of
this
I
would
point
out
that
small
donor
matching
ordinances
have
been
adopted
in
14
other
states
and
25.
Other
municipalities
in
the
United
States.
Currently
Illinois
does
not
have
any
municipality
or
unit
of
government
that
has
adopted
this,
but
this
is
a
good
proposal
to
try
and
counteract
the
influence
of
big
money
in
elections.
So
I
rise
in
support
of
it.
I
am
here,
along
with
our
executive
director
from
reform
for
Illinois,
Ms
Kaplan
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
about
that.
D
M
Good
afternoon,
everyone
I
think
we
need
to
get
back
to
basics
and
once
again,
I'd
like
to
make
a
couple
of
comments
about
public
comment.
M
I
thought
public
comment
was
designed
for
the
public
and
intended
to
create
a
dialogue
in
some
way,
shape
or
form
not
tonight,
but
at
some
point
in
time,
once
again,
I
ask
that
you
or
how
you
intend
to
make
that
happen,
because
that's
what's
intended
by
public
comment,
there
should
be
a
rule
that
requires
that
dialogue.
Okay,
rules
committee
is
a
good
place
to
start.
How
do
you
intend
to
make
that
happen?
M
Do
you
really
want
input
from
the
public
or
is
it
just
something
that's
required
by
law,
and
why
do
you
only
allow
two
minutes
for
public
comment
for
rules
committee
and
three
minutes
at
consul?
Only
20
minutes
total
public
comment
here
at
rules
committee
and
45
minutes
at
city
council.
Is
this
not
as
important
as
City
Council
meetings?
Why
are
those
public
comment
minutes
so
drastically?
Different
residents
need
to
be
part
of
all
the
discussions
and
all
the
processes
by
the
way.
M
Last
council
meeting
one
week
ago,
mayor
bis,
gave
residents
about
a
minute
40
seconds
for
public
comment.
There
were
only
11
speakers
in
person
and
seven
on
the
phone.
Obviously,
the
public
comment
process
is
not
working
as
it
was
designed
to.
How
do
you
plan
to
correct
the
disregard
for
your
residence?
This
is
Rules
Committee.
Obviously
we
need
some
new
rules,
foreign
way
off,
okay,
when
there's
only
18
speakers
that
public
comment
at
city
council
meeting
and
you're,
giving
one
minute
and
40
seconds
for
each
your
way
off
with
the
time.
D
Next,
we
will
go
to
this
gentleman
and
then
we
will
go
to
online
and
we
have
Mike
fasilko,
Jim,
Hughes
and
Jeff
Smith
signed
up
for
online.
If
you
can
say
your
name,
please,
my
name
is
Jim
Hughes.
I
I
Sir
yeah
I
was
working
in
the
garden
put
on
a
clean
shirt
for
zoom
and
couldn't
get
through
so
I
I
drove
over
here.
My
apologies:
hey.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
agenda
item
D1
regarding
the
process
for
land
use.
D
Thank
you
next
we'll
go
to
online
comment
with
Mike
fasilko,
followed
by
Jeff
Smith
two
minutes
each.
You
can't
see
the
timer,
so
I
will
give
you
a
15
second
warning:
Mr
vasilko.
D
D
D
No,
we
still
can't,
let's,
let's
come
back
to
Mr
fosilko
and
we'll
go
with
Jeff
Smith,
we'll
see
if
Mr
Smith's
microphone
is
working.
D
There
we
go,
okay
looks
like
we
have
our
audio
issues
in
order,
so
let's
go
back
to
our
original
order.
Mr
vasilko
followed
by
Mr
Smith.
H
Thank
you
pretty
much
like
everybody
else
before
me,
I'm
speaking
on
D1
and
against
voting
in
favor
of
D1,
so
I'm
asking
you
to
vote
against
it.
You
know
I,
guess
I'm
a
skeptical
person,
because
it
seems
that
the
timing
of
this
is
so
coincidental
with
northwestern's
Orion
field
proposal
coming
down.
The
pike
seems
like
if
this
is
approved.
H
I
know
this
is
supposed
to
be
for
discussion,
but
if
it
gets
to
the
point
where
it's
approved
and
the
timing
is
such
that
Northwestern
can
take
advantage
of
it,
they
will
or
they
will
try
to.
This-
has
their
fingerprints
all
over
it.
In
my
opinion
and
I'd
hate
to
think
they
have
some
way
of
influencing.
What's
going
on
with
staff
making
this
recommendation
so
I'm
asking
you
to
vote
against
it.
H
I'd
also
like
to
know
the
status
of
the
finance
the
city
financed,
Ryan,
Field
development,
economic
impact
study-
that's
been
out
there
for
months,
supposedly
being
worked
on,
haven't
seen
any
public
meetings
being
noted
in
the
calendar.
Citizen
comments
have
not
been
involved
in
that
process
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
and
I
hope
that
that
documents,
in
whatever
form
it
is,
is
not
going
to
be
released
on
the
eve
of
the
leuc
meeting
on
August
9th.
So
tonight,
please
don't
even
bring
this
D1
issue
up
for
discussion.
15
seconds.
D
I'm
done,
thank
you
Mr
facilko
and
apologies
for
the
false
start
with
the
microphone
Mr
Smith
over
to
you,
sir.
N
Unmuting
now,
thank
you,
chairman
nuzma,
and
members
of
the
committee
I'm
here
tonight
on
do
one
because
zoning
decisions
have
a
constitutional
Dimension.
People
make
consequential
financial
and
life
decisions
based
on
what
can
be
done
there
with
their
property
and
nearby
properties,
buying,
selling
or
rehabbing
a
home
or
business
is
not
as
simple
as
changing
brands
of
toothpaste.
So
zoning
and
Zoning
changes,
which
aren't
powers
inherent
to
municipalities
but
are
granted
by
a
state
of
Illinois
statute,
are
required
to
afford
due
process
to
those
with
property
interests
at
stake.
N
Otherwise
it
can
be
an
unconstitutional
taking.
There
are
pros
and
cons
to
multiple
levels
of
process
and
process
before
elected
in
political
bodies
versus
unelected
and
unaccountable
bodies.
You'd
expect
a
memo
on
a
topic,
this
momentous
to
discuss
constitutionality,
due
process,
transparency
and
at
bottom,
what's
fairest
for
the
parties
affected
and
what
will
result
in
the
best
decision
making
on
behalf
of
the
residents
of
Evanston
with
the
council,
May
iron
boards
and
commission
serve.
N
Instead,
the
report
to
this
committee
dismantly
focuses
only
on
issues
of
convenience
like
hard
start
times
and
making
a
better
record
for
when
the
city
gets
sued.
We've
already
had
too
much
truncation
of
Resident
rights
and
due
process
such
as
setting
arbitrary
cumulative
comment
limits
or
dissolving
the
zba.
There
are
procedural
options:
Beyond,
those
in
the
memo,
as
csna
recommends.
No
new
Option
should
be
chosen
especially
option
two
until
this
committee
has
been
adequately
briefed
on
and
had
the
older
discussion
that
this
truly
important
topic
deserves.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
Smith.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
public
comment.
One
last
call
for
anybody
in
the
room
or
anybody
online,
seeing
none
we
will
move
on
with
the
agenda.
Next
up
is
the
approval
of
the
rules
committee
meeting
minutes
from
June
5th
of
this
year,
so.
D
We're
not
picking
up
councilmember
Harris,
so
by
a
vote
of
six
to
nothing.
The
minutes
from
June
5th
are
approved,
which
brings
us
to
item
R1.
This
is
resolution.
4
R,
23
amending
city
council
rule
one
to
add
rule
1.3
regarding
adjournment.
If
somebody
could
make
a
motion
on
this.
D
See
none
from
other
members
of
the
committee
until
council
member
Reed
requested
to
be
recognized,
which
I
will
do
now.
E
But
I
just
wanted
to
check.
We
didn't
get
to
check
on
this.
So
do
you
believe
this
accomplishes
what
you
set
out
to
accomplish.
E
O
Been
amended
so
that,
should
there
be
a
council
member
serving
another
term,
any
item
that
had
been
previously
referred
could
jump
back
right
up
to
a
standing
committee.
So
I
think
it's
hopefully
amended
to
everybody's
right.
I
O
D
All
right,
yeah
I'm
in
support
I
just
am
offering
an
amendment
that
clarifies
a
couple
of
things.
One
was
a
missing
word
so
I'm
suggesting
that
we
add
the
word
action.
Is
there
any
other
matter
that
has
not
been
resolved
through
a
final
city
council
action?
It
seemed
that
word
was
missing
and
I
want
to
explicitly
state
that
a
referral
is
one
of
the
matters
that
yeah
that
would
have
to
be
re-referred.
D
We
didn't
explicitly
say
referral
so
I'm,
suggesting
we
add
that
so
I've
emailed
the
revised
wording
or
my
my
proposed
wording
just
a
few
minutes
ago.
E
D
D
D
Vote
of
seven
to
nothing
resolution
for
our
23
as
amended
passes,
which
brings
us
to
item
R2.
If
somebody
would
care
to
make
a
motion
on
R2
I.
D
It's
been
properly
moved
by
council,
member
Cardis
and
seconded
by
mayor
biss.
This
is
ordinance
56023,
adding
Title
1
chapter
13,
Section
5
small
donor
matching
system
for
fair
elections.
Is
there
any
discussion.
Council
member
card
is
followed
by
council
member
Reed.
P
So
I'll
speak
a
little
bit
to
this.
So
when
reform
I
worked
with
reform
for
Illinois
to
come
up
with
this
ordinance,
I
think
you
know,
my
thought
is
that
you
know
you're
elections
and
money,
not
a
great
mix.
I
think
there
is
a
desire
for
campaign
Finance
reform.
This
will
allow
folks
running
for
mayor
to
use
public
funds
to
find
Finance
their
campaign.
P
This
is
something
that
will
add
a
level
of
transparency
to
our
local
politics.
This
is
something
that
you
know
is
cost
less
than
a
dollar
per
person
per
year.
It's
68
000
to
start
the
fund.
P
It
is
I
think
important
that
we
establish
if
we're
going
to
do
this,
establish
the
fund
this
year.
I'd
urge
my
colleagues
to
vote
this
forward.
There
are
some
you
know
if
we're
looking
at
amendments
I
think
we
have
a
month
break
from
city
council.
This
we
have
I
would
urge
people
to
you
know
come
forward
with
any
changes,
but
I
feel
if
you
are
in
favor
of
this
is
a
general
idea.
We
should
move
this
forward
to
council
and
we
can
work
out
the
small
details
going
forward.
E
You
I
highly
appreciate
council
member
headacharis
for
leading
on
this
issue.
It
is
extremely
important
that
we
get
big
money
out
of
and
at
the
municipal
level,
big
money
means
something
different,
but
big
money
out
of
our
local
politics
and
make
sure
that
our
democracy
is
accessible
to
as
many
folks
as
possible,
and
so
I
certainly
agree
with
the
mission
here.
E
My
and
I'm
willing
to
my
main
concern
here
is
that
I
don't
know
if
this
particular
reform
helps
us
reach
folks
who
are
low,
propensity
voters
as
well
as
some
other
policies,
such
as
democracy
dollars.
Might
we
have
seen
that
democracy
dollars
in
Seattle
I
believe
have
increased
voter
participation
among
slow
propensity
voters?
E
I
have
not
seen
research
that
shows
that
these,
the
the
small
donor
matching
system
accomplishes
the
same
outset
and
one
of
the
unintended
consequences
that
I
fear
is
that
we
will
increase
the
power,
the
financial
power
to
contribute
to
campaigns
of
folks
who
already
are
likely
to
to
vote
and
contribute.
E
Instead
of
you
know
someone
having
to
to
donate
as
much
as
they
would
have
in
the
past,
where
in
some
ways,
subsidizing
folks
who
who
are
likely
to
to
contribute,
so
you
know,
I
I,
would
love
to
see
us
move
forward
with
a
a
a
a
program
that
uses
a
voucher-based
system.
If
we
do
not
move
forward
with
the
voucher-based
system.
I
would
ask
that
we
limit
the
matching
contribution
contribution
eligibility
to
folks
who
are
in
some
lower
income
bracket.
One
that'll
save
some
money,
but
two.
E
You
know
big
money
in
local
campaigns
is
a
thousand
dollar
contribution.
Essentially
some
of
us
may
receive
occasionally
a
five
thousand
dollar
contribution,
but
you
know
quite
frankly,
even
a
500
contribution
in
Municipal
elections
is
a
is,
is
big
money
in
in
our
races,
particularly
in
the
aldermanic
races?
I
know,
this
is
for
the
mayoral
campaign,
but
I
think
if
we
did
an
analysis
across
the
board
for
the
Mayoral
race.
You
know
it's
much.
Smaller
dollar
amount
that
we're
talking
about
here.
Q
You
mayor
Bess,
thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
ask,
because
one
of
the
benefits
of
this
approach
is
that
it
has
been
in
operation.
You
know
relatively
recently
and
an
awful
lot
of
places
and
for
quite
a
long
time
in
a
few
places
and
I
was
wondering
if
the
folks
from
reform
for
law
I
could
just
speak
quickly
to
what
we've
learned
from
the
execution
of
this
type
of
matching
program.
G
G
We've
had
more
recent
programs
in
Washington
DC.
They
found
that
the
ZIP
code,
with
most
the
most
contributions,
had
one
of
the
lowest
medium
incomes
in
the
district
and
encompassed
its
most
diverse
neighborhood
in
Portland
Oregon.
They
found
that
when
they
implemented
a
small
donor
matching
program,
the
the
size
of
the
donation
shrank
by
15
times,
contributors
were
more
evenly
spread
around
the
city
and
a
majority
of
small
donors
to
the
to
City
elections
under
that
program
had
never
given
before.
E
Reed.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that,
and
thank
you
for
sharing
that
I
I
do
want
to
note
recently
been
to
both
of
these
cities.
New
York,
City,
Washington
DC,
are
very
different
from
Evanston.
Dc's
population
is
almost
45
African-American.
They
have
some
of
the
highest.
They
have
the
highest
rate
of
income.
Inequality
in
our
nation,
New
York
City
again
is
a
another
city
that
is,
has
a
much
higher
minority
population
than
the
City
of
Evanston
and
much
higher
rates
of
poverty
than
the
City
of
Evanston.
E
So
I
think
you
know
in
this
case,
assuming
that
you
know
this
will
have
that
impact
here.
I
I
can't
say
that
for
certain
I
I
would
like
to
see
us
limit
eligibility
for
matching
funds
to
some
income
bracket.
I.
Don't
think
that
we
should
be
matching
funds
for
folks
who
you
know
who
who
can
truly
afford
to
give
a
contribution.
E
I
think
there
should
be
an
incentive,
a
stronger
incentive
than
and
there
is
in
New
York
City
or
Washington
DC
or
Portland
Oregon
here
in
Evanston,
a
stronger
incentive
to
ensure
that
candidates
are
reaching
out
to
low-income,
low
propensity
voters
to
work
to
earn
their
vote
and
work
to
earn
a
contribution.
And
so,
while
I
certainly
would
support
this
being
workshopped.
At
some
point,
I
would
like
to
move
to
limit
the
eligibility
or
create
and
limited
the
eligibility
to
folks
who
are
at
80
of
AMR,
Ami
or
lower.
L
It,
which
is
the
Supreme
Court
cases
since
2007,
when
chief
justice
Roberts
took
the
court,
had
been
hospital
to
campaign
Finance
reform.
Generally,
two
of
the
Supreme
Court
cases
addressed
the
rights
of
Rich
donors.
In
one
case,
the
Court
held
that
a
matching
system
that
had
been
adopted,
I
believe
was
in
North
Carolina,
which
had
a
provision
for
adjusting
limits.
L
When
someone
when
a
non-candidate
or
a
candidate
dumped,
a
large
amount
of
money
into
an
election
say,
an
independence
pack
or
or
an
outside
donor,
and
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
was
unconstitutional
is
violating
the
rights
of
the
wealthier
contributors
under
the
First
Amendment.
If
I
recall,
the
holding
of
that
case
correctly,
I'd
be
happy
to
get
the
details
and
provide
them.
L
But
that's
my
recollection
of
that
case,
there's
another
case
where
the
court
has
suggested
that
differentiating
between
Rich
donors
and
poor
donors
is
questionable
as
well,
because
we
all
have
the
same
basic
First
Amendment
rights,
whether
you
agree
with
that
or
not.
That
is
the
view
of
the
current
majority
on
the
Supreme
Court.
So
that
is
the
basis
for
suggesting
that
there
may
be
constitutional
issues
with
an
income-based
differentiation
in
the
approach.
E
L
That's
under
the
Illinois
statute,
because
that's
the
only
kind
of
adjustment
that
the
Supreme
Court
case
allows
that's
why
that
provision
was
adopted
as
an
amendment
to
the
Illinois
campaign,
Finance
Reform
Act
that
was
originally
adopted
in
2009
and
that
Amendment
adapt
listing
the
limits.
If
there's
a
large
contribution
was
the
only
available
remedy
under
the
existing
Supreme
Court
precedent
and
it
was
adopted
in
2011..
L
E
You
well
I.
You
know
there
wasn't
a
second
to
that
amendment.
I
am
not
I
trust.
Your
judgment
there
I
would
love
to
read
more
about
it.
I
think
then
we
need
to.
We
need
to
understand
the
impact
of
this
and
I
think
somehow.
E
We
need
to
I
I'm
greatly
fearful
that
we
are
only
going
to
boost
the
ability
of
you
know
wealthier,
more
connected
evanstonians
folks
who
tend
to
vote
in
elections,
we're
only
going
to
increase
their
ability
to
influence
our
elections
even
more
and
subsidize
that
by
taxpayers,
I
would
love
to
see.
You
know,
I
believe
Seattle's
voucher
program.
Is
there
an
income
component
to
that,
or
is
that
Universal
as
well,
which.
L
I,
don't
believe,
there's
an
income
I
do
not
believe
there's
an
income
provision
in
the
Seattle
program.
It's
open
to
every
all,
registered
voters
as
I
recall
and
I'd
be
happy
to
discuss
the
Supreme
Court
cases
with
you
offline.
L
But
the
other
thing
I
would
point
out.
Is
that
any
any
adoption
of
any
campaign
Finance
reform
is
likely
to
be
challenged
by
right-wing
people
who
oppose
any
change
in
the
campaign
Finance
system
to
make
it
fairer
to
the
vast
majority
of
citizens
where
their
voices
are
drowned
out
by
big
money?
L
E
Thank
you
and
to
close
out
here
speaking
of
legality,
I
am
I
I,
don't
recall
if
my
question
regarding
just
the
legality
of
the
city
using
taxpayer
money
to
subsidize
political
campaigns.
If
that
was
answered
in
the
memo.
R
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
an
answer
to
that.
Quite
yet.
I
talked
to
Deputy
City
attorney
ruggie
earlier
today
and
I.
Don't
know
that
we
have
a
an
answer
to
that.
I
can
just
tell
you
generally.
There
is
a
Prohibition
against
using
public
property
for
private
interest,
but
I,
don't
think
that
we
would
consider
campaigns
or
elections
to
be
private
interests
per
se.
I
think
that's
probably
also
public
interest.
If.
E
Okay,
I
I
would
like
us
to
look
into
both
of
those
I.
I
really
would
implore.
My
colleagues,
particularly
if
we
find
out
that
there
is
a
way
that
we
can
do
this
to
look
into
having
you
know
limits
or
additional
boosters
or
whatever
we
will
for
low-income
folks
or
or
some
way
that
we
can
build
into
this
ordinance
a
more
intentional
mechanism
that
will
encourage
candidates
to
reach
out
to
low
propensity
voters.
If
we
can
do
that,
I
I
can
get
100
behind
this.
E
I
do
still
have
concerns
and
I
hope
that
the
legal
questions
will
be
answered
before
we
move
forward,
because
I
I
fear
that
we're
going
to
potentially
walk
ourselves
into
another
we've
already
got
ranked
Choice
voting
coming
up,
which
I
have
some
serious
legal
concerns
about
and
maybe
challenged
in
court
and
to
have
two
things
challenged
in
court
and
not
by
right-wing
folks
but
Progressive
folks,
who
are
concerned
about
making
sure
that
black
and
brown
and
low
income-
and
you
know
student
voters
are
participating
in
our
local
elections
at
higher
rates,
because
we
know
that,
quite
frankly,
they
are
not
and
I
I
fear
that
some
of
these
changes
could
could
add
to
that.
D
You
councilmember
Richard
for
the
record
council
member
Reed's
motion
failed
for
lack
of
a
second
I'm
going
to
share
some
concerns
of
my
own
and
then
councilmember
Kelly
has
sought
recognition
I'm
generally
in
favor
of
of
this
philosophically
I
think
making
democracy
more
accessible
to
voters.
Making
democracy
more
accessible
to
by
two
potential
candidates
is
in
the
best
interests
of
our
city.
It's
in
the
best
interest
of
our
country,
so
I
like
the
direction
this
is
going.
D
I
do
have
looking
at
the
details,
a
number
of
of
questions
and
I
think
and
things
that
need
to
be
cleaned
up
a
little
bit,
probably
too
many
and
with
some
fairly
broad
questions
too
much
to
clean
up
on
the
dice
tonight.
To
be
able
to
enable
me
to
vote
for
this
tonight,
but
I
will
share
my
three
most
significant
concerns.
D
One
is
the
qualifying
period
And.
If
the
idea
here
is
to
open
up
the
the
Mayoral
race
to
folks
who
might
not
ordinarily
be
interested
or
able
to
consider
running,
I
think
we
should
shorten
up
the
qualifying
period
as
currently
drafted.
The
qualifying
period
starts
the
day
after
the
election
after
the
previous
election.
D
So
four
plus
years
or,
let's
say,
let's
round
up
to
four
years,
for
an
incumbent
mayor
to
to
get
qualifying
donations,
a
challenger
would
not
normally
materialize
until
the
the
year
before
the
election
six
months,
there's
no
hard
number
on
on
that,
but
I
would
be
in
favor
of
making
the
qualifying
period.
Something
less
I'll
suggest,
at
least
for
further
discussion
to
make
the
qualifying
Period
start
six
months
before
the
last
day
of
the
filing
period
for
the
election
in
question.
D
So
that's
just
one
problem:
I
have
another
issue:
I
have
is
regarding
the
role
of
the
city
clerk,
not
in
administering
this
program.
I
think
it
makes
sense
for
the
clerk
to
handle
the
paperwork
to
handle
the
applications,
but
to
ask
the
clerk
to
serve
in
a
quasi
judicial
role.
If
there
is
a
dispute
is
not
something
I
think
the
clerk's
office
is
set
up
to
do
if
the
clerk
doesn't
have
that
training,
the
clerk
doesn't
have
that
experience
and
the
clerk
in
and
of
itself
is
an
elected
position.
D
So
you
know
to
avoid
the
appearance
of
a
conflict
of
interest,
I,
think
a
different
mechanism
to
handle
disputes
or
allegations
of
somebody
not
following
the
rules
would
be
appropriate
here.
Perhaps
the
answer
is
our
existing
election
board,
which
isn't
a
great
answer,
since
that's
elected
officials
too,
but
so
that's
I
I
am
stumbling
on
the
role
of
the
clerk
in
that
regard,
and
then
another
issue
that
we
at
the
minimum
need
to
clear
up
is
with
regards
to
the
draft
section
11357,
which
is
limitations
on
contributions.
D
We
have
talked
about
the
the
definition
of
a
lobbyist,
so
I'm
not
sure
where
we're
at
with
the
state
definition,
and
how
does
that?
How
does
that
play
out
here
locally
if
at
all,
the
current
draft
also
suggests
that
anyone
doing
business
with
the
City
of
Evanston,
more
than
five
thousand
dollars
should
be
prohibited
from,
should,
should
be
prohibited
from
donating.
D
If
we
were
to
do
that
and
I
certainly
understand
the
intent,
I
think
the
onus
has
to
be
on
the
donor
to
self-certify,
because
we
can't
ask
a
candidate
to
reasonably
know
who
of
the
thousands
of
to
know
the
Thousand
vendors
that
the
city
deals
with
on
an
annual
basis.
That's
just
would
be
unrealistic
to
expect
the
candidate
to
be
able
to
filter
that
such
a
donor
out
in
all
cases,
also
have
in
a
similar
vein,
the
prohibition
against
anyone
who
is
who
I
don't
know
the
exact
words.
D
But
who
is
looking
to
do
a
zoning
variance
with
the
city
that
would
preclude
me
from
participating,
I
applied
for
a
curb
cut
in
2010,
so
my
pregnant
wife
wouldn't
have
to
get
out
of
the
car
on
the
street
pregnant
with
twins.
By
the
way
it
was
denied.
No
problem,
I
ran
for
city
council,
but
I.
Don't
think
the
intent
of
the
of
the
ordinance
is
to
preclude
folks
like
me
in
that
case,
from
participating.
D
So
we
would
need
to
you,
know
clean
up
this
language,
and
you
know
make
it
clear
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
for
prohibit
undue
fiscal
influence
from
developers
who
are
seeking
to
buy
influence.
That's
the
point,
I
get
it.
D
That
makes
sense,
but
the
wording
that
we
have
doesn't
you
know
doesn't
make
that
abundantly
clear
and
again
this
in
order
for
it
to
be
you
know,
effective
in
you
know
practically
effective
would
require
the
donor
to
self-certify,
because
there's
no
telling,
if
you
know
who
may
choose
to
apply
for
a
variance
two
weeks,
two
months,
two
years
into
a
term
and
so
to
hold
the
candidate
responsible,
for
that
would
just
not
make
sense
so
Miss
Kaplan,
it
seems,
like
you,
have
some
responses
here.
G
Yeah
we
actually
addressed
your
concerns.
Allison
I
didn't
know.
Should
we
discuss
them
Yeah?
We
actually
addressed
your
concerns
in
a
memo
and
drafted
proposals
for
modifying
the
legislation
for
the
Zoning,
for
example,
it
specifies
that
it's
non-residential,
so
you
and
your
wife
would
be
wouldn't
be
included.
Things
like
you
know,
planning
whether
you're
doing
business
or
planning
to
do
business.
That's
just
the
addition
of
a
word
moving
the
qualifying
period,
we're
totally
open
to
and
is
an
easy
thing
to
do.
You
can
just
say
you
know.
G
You
start
the
qualifying
period
six
months
before
I.
Think
an
hour
proposal
was
the
November
1st
before
the
before
the
election.
What
were
your
other
questions.
G
And
the
donor,
the
role
of
the
city
clerk,
we
actually
vetted
the
ordinance
with
both
the
city
clerk
and
the
Corporation
Council
when
we
first
drafted
it,
and
the
only
objection
that
came
up
was
that
the
clerk
had
originally
been
tasked
with
levying
fees
and
fines,
and
they
didn't
feel
that
that
was
appropriate
to
her
role.
So
we
took
that
out
and
we
understand
from
the
clerk-
and
somebody
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
she's
she
does
things
like
this
in
the
course
of
her
position.
G
L
F
L
E
E
G
And
then
come
we
have
a
proposal
where
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
raise
the
money.
You
can
easily
put
that
restriction
on
and
say
they
can
only
raise
money
during
the
qualifying
period,
but
I
should
say
that
you
know
that's
something
that
incumbents
can
do
right
now,
and
so
you
know
this
would
still
be
lifting
everybody
up.
Even
if
incumbents
had
that
Advantage.
But
if
you
decided
that
incumbent
shouldn't
have
that
Advantage,
it's
an
easy
thing
to
fix.
It.
L
Would
be
prohibited
under
the
ordinance
because,
in
order
to
be
a
participating
candidate
in
the
program,
you
have
to
certify
that
for
the
past
for
the
prior
election
cycle,
you're
in
compliance
with
all
the
requirements
of
the
ordinance
which
includes
it
a
limit
a
cap
on
maximum
contributions.
So
no
your
scenario
would
not
be
permitted
under
the
current
draft
as
I
understand.
E
D
You
thank
you.
I,
have
a
number
of
other
kind
of
minor
concerns,
things
that
are
fairly
easy
to
fix.
Don't
want
to
go
into
that
detail
right
now.
I
will
recognize
councilmember
Kelly.
G
Varies
widely
depending
on
the
existing
bodies
of
the
other
cities.
So
in
some
cases
it's
resides
within
whatever
election
Authority
is
in
some
cases
in
the
bigger
cities
like
New
York,
there's
a
campaign
Finance
board,
so
it
really
just
depends
on
the
existing
capacity
of
the
of
the
jurisdiction
at
hand.
Some
of
these
we
try
to
not
to
reinvent
the
wheel
as
much
as
possible,
but
sometimes
they're
just
unique
circumstances
that
we
can't
you
know
find
so.
O
R
Just
briefly
to
state
that
the
enforcement
mechanism
in
the
city
with
our
military
review
process
is
perfectly
fine.
I
think
the
the
concern
that
was
expressed
by
the
Law
Department
was
the
lack
of
like
staff
to
be
able
to
review
it
in
order
to
bring
that
enforcement
action
right
now.
The
clerk
has
the
clerk
and
two
Deputy
clerks,
but
we
and
we
don't
know
exactly
what
this
burden
would
be
in
terms
of
what
this
is.
If
this
is
implemented,
but
that
was
our
concern.
R
It
wasn't
that
we
didn't
think
that
the
clerk
strike
that
we
we
did
think
that
the
issue
with
the
having
the
clerk
to
enforcement
was
a
lack
of
staff
to
actually
investigate
in
order
to
bring
in
enforcement
action.
E
With
with
equity
in
mind,
I
I
think
we
should
move
to
amend
this
to
include
the
you
know,
two
or
three
Wards,
with
the
highest
rates
of
poverty,
to
also
allow
those
candidates
who
are
seeking
to
run
in
those
Wards.
The
ability
to
use
this
small
donor
matching
fund
system
I
think
that'll.
Allow
both
that'll
help
us
be
intentional
about
Outreach
to
the
awards
with
the
highest
rates
of
poverty.
E
And
so
you
know
those
rewards
would
be
the
the
fifth
War,
the
second
war
The
Fifth
Ward
and
the
eighth
Ward,
and
so
I
will
move
I'm
happy
to
discuss
this
between
time,
but
I
I
think
we
have
to
do
something
to
ensure
that
we
are
being
intentional
about
Equity
here.
So
I'll
move
that
we
include
the
three
Wards
candidates
for
the
three
Awards
with
the
highest
rates
of
poverty
in
the
matching
program.
D
I
will
remind
you
that
we're
talking
about
only
the
Mayoral
race
here,
not
ultimatic,
races,
right.
E
Which
is
what
my
amendment
is
about,
allowing
the
three
Wards
with
the
to
the
candidates
for
aldermen
in
the
three
Wards
to
also
have
access
to
the
the
small
donor
matching
funds.
D
R
E
B
Thank
you,
I
mean
we
couldn't
we
schedule
a
rules
committee
meeting
in
early
September,
because
it's
because
of
the
Labor
Day
holiday,
that
were,
we
wouldn't
have
one
on
the
calendar,
so
it
could
be
perhaps
the
third
Monday
or
a
Tuesday.
Although.
E
B
Q
Q
I
think
we
just
got
a
memo
that
addresses
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised.
I
I,
you
know,
I
know
that
this
is
an
item.
That's
been
under
discussion
and
advocated
by
councilmember
hadakatis
since
very
early
in
the
calendar
year,
and
you
know
I
have
to
say
that
he
was
always
urging
us
to
move
forward.
Q
So
you
have
ample
time
to
consider
this
in
time
for
the
budget
discussions,
and
now
we
find
ourselves
in
in
mid-july
with
a
lot
of
information,
a
lot
of
details
that
have
been
shared
and
a
lot
of
work,
that's
been
done.
I
I
would
say
we
should
move
this
forward.
There'll
still
be
two
more
opportunities
for
amendments
to
be
considered,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
time
is
of
the
essence
and
the
quality
of
the
item
before
us.
More
than
merits
it
being
forwarded
onto
Council.
D
E
E
I
I
would
encourage
us
to
table
this
until
the
next
meeting
and
the
chair
can
work
to
schedule.
A
meeting
in
September
I
also
think
that
if
this
comes
in
mid-october
or
early
October,
you
know
we
don't
adopt
our
budget
until
November
often,
and
we
have
this-
is
we
can
put
a
placeholder
in
assuming
that
this
is
coming?
We
know
how
much
is
estimated
for
for
at
least
next
year.
E
I
would
encourage
us
to
table
this.
Get
it
right,
make
sure
that
we're
we're
dotting
all
of
our
Crossing,
all
of
our
T's
and
dotting
all
of
our
eyes
and
I
would.
If,
if
we
aren't
going
to
table
this
I,
unfortunately,
would
have
to
vote
no.
Today,
I
am
concerned
about
us
not
being
intentional
about
addressing
the
equity
concerns.
We
did
that
with
ranked
Choice
voting.
I
I
can't
have
us
do
that.
O
Thank
you,
I
just
councilmember
News
Made
many
good
could
could
all
the
potentially
would
you
feel
comfortable
with
those
being
addressed
and
brought
back
to
council.
D
Either
way
it's
the
same
10
people
that
are
going
to
have
the
discussion
and
the
same
10
people
that
are
going
to
do
the
work,
so
I
think
I
tend
to
agree
with
councilmember
Reed
that
doing
the
I
dot
in
the
T
Crossing
at
the
committee
level.
Is
the
right
place
to
do
that
work?
We
do
that
effectively.
D
Then
it
sails
through
Council
by
the
time
it
gets
to
us
in
that
in
that
Forum
and
in
light
of
the
necessity
of
budgeting
for
this
next
year,
I'm
supportive
of
making
sure
we
set
money
aside
and
having
that
be
part
of
the
budgeting
process,
which
is
just
now
getting
started.
So
the
motion
is
on
the
table
to
postpone
or
to
to
table
this
item
to
the
next
meeting
of
the
rules
committee.
D
R
D
There's
no
further
discussion
on
this
motion.
The
motion
table
has
been
made
and
seconded
and
I'll
ask
for
a
role.
A
Council
member
Harris,
councilmember
Nguyen
council
member
new
Smith.
Q
D
O
D
Buy
a
vote
of
four
to
three.
That
motion
fails,
which
brings
us
to
the
underlying
motion
and,
if
there's
no
further
discussion,
I
will
call
for
a
role
on
the
underlying
motion.
D
Buy
a
vote
of
six
to
one
item
R2
passes
which
brings
us
to
item
R3,
ordinance,
67023
amending
Title,
II,
chapter
20,
finance
and
budget
committee.
If
I
have
a
motion.
D
Been
moved
by
councilmember,
Kelly
seconded
by
council
member,
when
is
there
any
discussion
on
item
R3.
E
D
By
a
vote
of
seven
to
nothing,
item
R3
passes,
which
brings
us
to
item
D1,
this
is
for
discussion.
Only
I
would
like
to
make
clear.
This
is
discussion
regarding
sending
special
use,
permit
applications,
unique
use
applications,
major
variation
applications
and
planned
development
applications
directly
to
city
council
from
the
land
use
commission.
So.
E
D
So
the
item
is
now
on
the
table
for
discussion.
I
believe
Council
Cummings
had
his
light
on
I'll
recognize
Council
Cummings,
then
councilmembered
by
councilmember
Reed.
R
Thank
you,
councilmember
news,
I
just
wanted
to
add
some
I
guess
historic
history
for
the
committee
to
consider
as
well,
because
there
were
a
lot
of.
Obviously,
this
item
got
a
lot
of
attention
with
public
comment.
We
also
received
in
an
email
earlier
this
today,
so
the
city
has
had,
like
other
municipalities,
a
planned
commission,
as
well
as
a
zoning
board
of
appeals.
R
An
ordinance
was
passed
in
2021
to
create
the
land
use
commission,
which
combined
those
two
entities
because
those
two
entities
we
were
having
trouble
as
a
city,
filling
the
positions
on
those
various
different
boards
and
oftentimes
meeting
Quorum
requirements.
This
is
under
the
former
community
development
director,
Johanna
nyden
came
up
with
this
in
conjunction
with
the
law,
Department
came
with
the
idea
to
create
a
land
use
commission
that
combined
both
of
those
the
city
code.
2-19.
R
If
you
look
at
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
landings
commission,
they
mirror
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
planned
commission
and
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
The
plan
commission
would
send
certain
particular
items
through
the
planning
and
development
committee,
and
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
would
send
certain
items
to
city
council.
So
in
combining
those
two
entities
and
creating
a
land
use
commission,
we
now
have
powers
and
duties
for
the
land
use
commission
to
send
items
to
both
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee,
as
well
as
City
Council.
R
Evanston
is
somewhat
unique,
at
least
in
our
survey
of
surrounding
communities,
in
the
sense
that
we
have
items
that
go
to
a
specific
city
council
standing
committee,
for
example,
Skokie
and
Wilmette.
Our
neighboring
communities
to
the
north
and
west
of
us
have
have
a
zoning
board
of
appeals.
Those
determinations
go
directly
to
their
village
board
after
their
determination
is
made.
R
The
city
of
Chicago
are
neighbors
of
the
South.
Has
a
extensive
staff
review
process
which
goes
from
the
zoning
administrator
to
what
would
in
Evanston
is
considered
Dapper
before
it
goes
to
a
public
body
for
public
hearing
and
then
goes
to
city
council
only
in
Evanston.
Is
there
the
extra
step
of
going
to
a
city,
council
committee
and
then
again
the
city
council?
So
what
sparked
this
was
some
controversy
about
making
certain
special
use
permits
special
orders
of
business
going
to
city
council.
R
Some
felt
that
that
actually
circumvented
the
process.
One
review
of
the
city
code
there's
nothing
in
the
city
code.
This
is
the
process,
is
to
go
to
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee.
In
fact,
most
of
the
city
code,
with
the
exception
of
2-19-4,
which
talks
about
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
land
use
commission
talks
about
how
the
land
use
commission,
specifically
in
chapter
6
of
the
zoning
code,
talks
about
how
the
items
deter
reviewed
by
the
lane
use
commission
links,
Landing
submission
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
R
R
Should
that
be
the
final
determining
body,
and
there
was
a
discussion
that
was
had
about
due
process
so
in
considering
all
these
options
due
process
was
considered
and
the
due
process
that
is
afforded
is
to
the
applicant
and
those
interested
Property
Owners,
so
interested
Property
Owners
can
be
objectors
within
500
feet
could
be
people
within
a
thousand
feet,
etc,
etc,
depending
upon
how
the
code
is
written.
R
So
all
of
those
things
were
considered
in
providing
these
options
for
discussion
for
the
city
council,
but
what
was
most
obviously
missed
was
one
of
those
options
was
to
codify
our
current
practice,
which
is
to
go
to
the
Planning
Development
Committee,
because
that
is
not
in
the
city
code
and
understand
for
staff.
What
is
the
planning
and
development
committee's
role
once
it
gets
this
recommendation
from
The
Landings
commission?
Is
it
simply
to
disagree
with
the
land
use
commission
and
then
tell
the
city
council
that
we
disagree?
R
Is
it
to
agree
with
the
lanes
commission
until
the
city
council?
We
agree.
If
the
city
council
supposed
to
be
the
final
determining
body,
then
we
need
to
actually
clarify
that
in
the
city
code.
Lastly,
with
regard
to
the
suggestion
that
the
land
use
submission
be
the
final
determining
body,
we
understand
that
staff
understands
it's
not
necessarily
popular
choice.
R
However,
from
in
in
an
effort
to
not
confuse
things,
city
council
is
a
legislative
body.
Certainly
a
lot
of
municipalities
in
the
state
of
Illinois
city
council
makes
zoning
decisions,
but
when
we
get
to
court
you're
talking
about
a
legislative
decision
as
opposed
to
an
administrative
decision
and
that's
why
the
suggestion
was
made.
R
R
Certainly
welcome
that,
but
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
city
council
had
all
options
on
the
table
and
I
wanted
to
based
upon
you
know,
media
writings,
public
comments,
Etc
give
the
committee
a
little
more
background
as
to
why
these
suggestions
are
what
they
are
and
why
the
Evanston
process
is
somewhat
unique
from
other
communities
simply
because
we
we
couldn't
get
enough
people
to
participate
in
zba
and
plan
Commission.
D
Thank
you,
Alderman,
council,
member
headacharis
and
then
read
and
then
win.
P
I'll
just
go
on
the
record
to
say
that
I
think
land
use
commission
should
not
be
the
final
determining
body.
I
do
feel
you
know.
I
had
a
discussion
with
Council
Cummings
earlier.
P
You
know
a
lot
of
the
decisions
we
get
coming
to
Planning
Development
require
you
know
some
of
them
required
two-thirds
approval
of
counsel
there
I'm.
You
know
he
looking
at
the
rules
and
me
personally,
I
would
like
land
use
commission
recommendations
to
come
to
full
Council
so
that
we
all
have
a
voice
in
making
that
decision.
P
I
understand
that
some
people
like
having
it
intermediate,
inter
the
intermediate
step
of
being
in
planning
and
development,
but
considering
that
city
council
is
the
final
determining
body
I
would
rather
see
it
come
to
us
directly.
But
if
we
decide
Planning
Development,
that's
fine
too
I'm
on
that
committee
as
well.
So
either
way.
B
Yes,
I
I
think
I
can't
say
fast
enough
that
I
I
think
we
should
support
option
three.
The
Planning
and
Development
Committee
for
the
entire
time
I've
been
on
the
council
has
played
a
really
important
role
and
I
I
thanks
The
Corporation
Council
for
explaining
to
us
what
happened
here,
but
I
think
that
we
should
fix
our
ordinance
and
have
it
adhere
to
what
our
practice
has
been.
O
You
I
would
agree,
I
think
it's
very,
very
important
that
we
have
a
very
that
we
have
adequate
ample
and
focus
time
just
on
plan
developments
and
special
uses,
and
that
it's
not
just
simply
meshed
into
a
very
long
city
council
meeting
where
we're
dealing
with
budget
and
all
kinds
of
other
questions.
O
It's
very
important
that
we
retain
the
planning
and
development
committee's
review
of
the
of
these
items
and
I
and
I
also
feel
like
this
is
covered
and
and
I'm
look
reading
through
2
19
4,
where
it
says
over
and
over
again
that
the
land
use
commission
makes
recommendations
to
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee,
but
so
again,
I
feel
very
strongly
that
we
do
need
designated
Focus
time
for
for
plan
developments
for
special
uses
and
the
others
listed
here.
I
am
amenable
to
looking
at.
O
If
we
want
to
in
the
name
of
efficiency
of
you
know,
if
we
need
to
skip
or
set
aside,
maybe
Planning
Development
meets
on
a
Monday
when
Council
doesn't
so
that
we
have
more
time
or
to
maybe
consolidate
to
a
few
fewer
meetings.
I,
don't
know
if,
if
that,
if
that
could
work,
I'd
be
open
to
discussing
that
as
an
option.
Thank
you.
A
R
Just
one
more
thing:
I
forgot
I
mentioned
the
city
of
Chicago's
process
is
very
staff
intensive
there.
There
also
has
been
a
referral
and
I.
Don't
know
the
exact
standing
of
it
to
get
rid
of
the
the
project
and
Review
Committee
so
to
get
rid
of
dapper
so
that
that
would
also
be
out
of
the
out
of
the
mix.
So
they
would
just
be
the
zoning
administrator
land
use
commission
and
then,
whatever
happens,
as
staff
is
looking
for
direction.
R
If,
if,
in
fact,
the
direction
is
to
codify
our
current
practice,
we
would
also
seek
Direction
on
what
exactly
happens
at
Planning
Development
and
the
reason
why
I
asked
that
question
is
because
it
has
come
up
to
us.
Well,
we
just
had
an
example
where
the
Planning
Development
Committee
voted
5-1
to
reject
a
proposal.
R
Does
it
die
in
that
committee?
Well,
the
way
our
code
says
right
now:
city
council
is
the
final
generic
body,
so
it
was
almost
like
a
I
want
to
say
a
wasted
vote,
because
it
does
give
us
a
preview
as
to
how
it's
going
to
perform
at
city
council,
but
nevertheless
we
would
like
some
direction,
because,
if
we're
going
to
amend
the
code,
we
might
as
well
amend
it
to
say
what
happens
at
committee.
Yeah.
D
You
answered
the
question
I
was
about
to
ask
like:
can
something
die
in
p
d
and
if
that
remains
a
question,
my
answer
is
yes,
a
pnd
is
a
committee
of
the
council
and
if
something
dies
at
p
d,
then
it
dies.
It
does
not
have
to
die
again
at
Council
when
death
is
enough
and
yeah
I
will
just
also
go
on
the
record.
As
saying
that
you
know,
I
want
the
city,
council
or
a
committee
of
the
city
council
to
be
the
final
determining
body.
D
You
know
we
are
the
ones
that
are
elected
to
make
these
decisions.
D
We
are
the
ones
that
are
accountable
to
the
public
and
that
the
the
the
transparency
of
the
conversation
has
to
happen
at
the
city
council
and
if
the
community
doesn't
like
what
the
council
decides,
the
community
has
a
chance
to
vote
for
new
council
members,
so
I
do
want
I,
don't
want
to
take
the
council
out
of
this
at
all,
although
I
am
willing
to
allow
the
council
to
designate
to
a
standing
committee,
in
this
case
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee
the
responsibility
for
you
know
being
the
first
hearing
of
something
and
if
it
dies
there.
D
From
land
use
to
pnd,
then,
if
it
passes,
if
it
dies
at
P
and
D,
it
dies
if
it
passes
pnd,
then
it
goes
to
council
and
I.
Think
that's
our
has
been
our
standard
practice,
that's
what
the
community
is
comfortable
with
and
if
there
is
a
way
to
make
the
process
more
efficient
and
more
timely
by
scheduling
meetings
on
different
nights.
Let's
talk
about
that,
but
the
object
of
democracy
is
not
to
have
short
meetings.
R
So,
and,
and
to
that
point
councilmember
newsma,
this
topic
didn't
necessarily
come
up
for
us
to
have
shorter
meetings
per
se,
but
so
that
the
elected
officials
and
City
staff
would
not
be
in
the
building
until
1
or
2
A.M,
on
a
on
the
second
and
fourth
Monday
night
of
a
month,
city,
council,
rules
and
and
along
with
that
point,
require
Planning
and
Development
to
follow
APW.
So
if
the
the
thought
is
to
reschedule
those
meetings
or
have
a
different,
the
city
council
rules
need
to
be
amended
as
well.
D
Q
I
just
want
to
say
from
my
standpoint:
what's
you
know,
option
two
is
out
of
the
question.
What's
important
to
me
is
that
this,
the
full
city
council,
make
the
final
determination
and
I
don't
think
it's
I
would
not
consider
it
acceptable
for
a
subset
of
the
council
to
make
the
final
determination
I
actually
think.
It's
really
really
poor
public
policy
to
designate
people
who
represent
only
a
portion
of
the
geographic
whole
to
make
decisions
like
this
so.
R
And
along
those
lines
there
under
the
current
code,
the
record
they're
both
recommendations.
So
the
recommendation
of
the
land
use
Commission
recommendation
of
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee.
It
can
still
maintain
recommendations
and
there
may
be
times
where
the
recommendation
of
the
Planning
Development
Committee
doesn't
match.
R
D
Go
back
a
number
of
us
have
said
something
could
die
at
p
and
d.
Mayor
biss
has
expressed
the
opinion
that
it
should
not
die
at
P
and
D.
It
would
have
to
die
again
at
Council.
Q
K
Q
M
R
R
N
Q
Let
me
be
extremely
clear
in
saying
that
I'm
not
saying
anything,
clear,
okay,
I,
don't
I,
don't
I,
don't
feel
strongly
on
the
question
that
it
sounds
like
some
other
people
do
so
I'm,
not
advocating
against
what
council
members
newsman
winner
suggesting
I'm.
Just
the
only
thing,
I'm
saying
against
option,
two
very
strongly
and
I'm
advocating
against
what
I
thought
now
looks
like
wrongly
that
councilmember
newsman
was
suggesting,
which
is
that
the
city
council
could
somehow
say
like
hey
man,
we
don't
want
to
worry
about
these
issues,
we're
too
busy.
Q
D
That
may
have
been
with
the
words
out
of
my
mouth
said
that
that
is
not
what
the
ideas
in
my
head
were
thinking
since
so
just
to
clarify.
I
think
where
we
all
are
here
is
that
something
goes
from:
staff
review
to
the
land,
use
Commission,
a
land
use
commission.
What
we'll
vote
on
it
and
make
a
recommendation
regardless
of
that
vote.
It
goes
to
P
and
D.
D
R
If
that's
the
case,
then
that
you
would
I
would
recommend
at
least
codifying
a
threshold
at
p
d,
because
you
could
always,
if,
if
you
say,
Noah
pnd
on
a
vote
of
three
to
two
city
council,
all
nine
could
overturn
that.
But
they
don't
get
the
chance
because
it
died
in
committee.
So
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
you
set
a
threshold
in
committee.
R
Most
recent
example
of
something
getting
a
five
to
one
vote
of
no
understanding.
You
already
have
five
votes
at
committee,
you're
likely
going
to
get
those
same
five
votes
a
council
completely
comfortable.
But
if
it's
lower
threshold
than
that
council
could
always
say
yes
and
disagree,
but
if
they
will
never
get
the
chance
to
if
it
dies
in
committee
by
something
less
than
a
particular
threshold.
Understood.
E
I
to
the
last
point,
I
certainly
I
think
that
everything
should
come
to
council
at
some
point.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
set
a
threshold
in
our
minds
even
on
the
last
item
could
have
changed
in
between
console
and
I'm.
Also
envisioning
a
world
where
potentially,
the
planning
and
development
committee
is
not
on
the
same
day
right
before
Council
I
know.
E
That
is
our
practice,
but
that
could
that
practice
could
be
changed
at
any
point
by
us
or
by
a
future
Council,
and
if
we're
going
to
draft
an
ordinance
that
is
far
more
permanent
than
our
own
desires
for
for
scheduling,
I
think
we
have
to
take
that
into
account,
and
so
I
would
encourage
us
to.
E
I'm
fine,
with
a
practice
with
a
practice
that
allows
us
to
efficiently
move
through
pnd
and
hear
the
public
if
they
want
to
share
public
comment
and
maybe
have
a
a
practice
of
moving
things
to
the
full
body
and
then
voting.
Our
conscience
at
the
full
body
is
not
to
set
in
place
in
an
ordinance
something
that
would
limit
a
future
Council
or
create
more
confusion
for
a
future.
Council.
O
O
The
only
thing
that
to
me
that
really
needs
to
be
addressed
is
efficiency
so
that
we're
not
delaying
the
start
of
council
by
so
much
so
I
I
would
like
to
see
simply
look
at
how
to
either
consolidate
into
fewer
meetings
or
perhaps
look
at
a
different
evening
so
and
again,
I
think
it's
already
stated
in
our
code
from
what
I'm
reading
that
you
know,
but
I
would
say
that
we
would
continue
as
precedent
has
sat
over
many
many
years
that
this
continued
to
go
to
p
d.
O
B
I
I
agree
with
council
member
Kelly,
but
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
that
there
are
any
number
of
things
that
die
at
Human,
Services
and
and
PW
that
we
don't
the
the
full
Council
doesn't
get
an
opportunity
to
address
and
I
think
that's
the
point
of
the
standing
committee
system
that
we
have
that
we
have
had
I
I,
can't
thinking
back,
I
I
think
there
was
possibly
only
one
development
that
I
can
think
of
that
would
have
and
I.
My
memory
made
me
faulty.
B
It
might
have
gone
a
different
direction
if
it
had
not
died
at
p,
p
d
I
think
it
was
the
tower
so
which
was
really
controversial.
R
I
was
just
going
to
point
out
to
councilmember
Wayne's
point
that
items
die
at
other
standing
committees
perfectly
acceptable.
It's
just
that
our
code
is
written.
That
city
council
does
this
with
zoning.
So
like
that's.
The
only
reason
why
staff
even
brought
this
to
the
attention
of
the
committee
is
because
this
the
Zone
the
code
says
that
council
is
supposed
to
be
the
final
decision
maker.
D
Noting
that
the
consensus
of
this
committee
seems
to
be
pretty
solid
here,
we'll
go
to
councilmember
Kelly,
then
council,
member
Reed.
O
So
it
seems
like
we
would
just
need
to
add
the
words
for
approval
only
or
something
to
that
effect.
I
mean
it
says
it
gets
recommended.
Okay,
but
the
other
point
I
just
want
to
make
and
then
is
also
I
think
the
way
it
currently
stands
when
it
goes
to
council
if
it's
been
approved,
is
that
that
does
facilitate.
It
goes
into
the
consent
agenda.
R
I
would
not
anticipate
staff
coming
forward
with
amendments
to
this
like
next
week.
I
think
I
would
have
to
talk
to
the
director
of
Community
Development.
This
would
most
likely
be
part
of
the
project
to
re
revamp
the
entire
zoning
code,
but
we
would
need
to
make
sure
that
we
would
just
continue
understanding.
We
wouldn't
continue
with
the
the
practice
of
going
through
Planning
Development
in
in
it
would
need
to
be
sort
of.
We
would
need.
R
Have
the
city
council
pass
something
that
would
say
like
if
it
it
dies
at
Planning
Development,
it
can
die.
Planning
Development,
but
I,
don't
anticipate
like
I
said
I
would
have
to
collaborate
with
my
colleague
in
Community
Development
to
see
like
when
any
sort
of
legislation
to
try
and
change
this
process
would
come
forward.
I,
don't
think
it
would
come
for
Monday
or
anything
like
that.
D
E
Yeah
I
just
want
to
note
to
councilmember
wen's
point
just
to
make
sure
this
is
in
the
way
that
we're
thinking
about
this
obviously
you're
completely
correct
that
many
items
die
in
a
committee.
I
just
want
to
note
that
those
items
aren't
applications
from
folks
in
our
community.
It's
legislative
actions
rather
than
what
this
process
is,
which
is
almost
quasi-judicial
in
some
way,
and
so
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
as
a
distinction
here
and
why
it
may
make
sense
for
the
council
be
to
be
the
final
arbiter
rather
than
a
committee.
D
If
there's
no
further
discussion,
I'll
make
an
attempt
at
kind
of
summarizing.
What
we're
saying
here
is:
don't
do
anything
different
land
use
to
p
d
to
council
if
it
passes
pnd,
if
it
doesn't
pass
P
and
D,
it
can
die
at
p
d,
and
if
we
need
to
make
changes
to
our
city
code
to
reflect
that
practice
yeah,
then
we
need
to
do
that,
and
so
thank
you
to
staff.
D
Thank
you
to
council
Cummings
for
bringing
this
problem
to
our
attention
to
allow
us
to
have
this
conversation
and
clarify
the
will
of
the
council.
The
will
of
the
rules
committee.
So
with
no
further
comments.
No
further
discussion
before
this
body
I
will
declare
the
meeting
adjourned
at
6
50
pm.
Thank
you.
Everybody.