Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Glickert asked Ms. Carr what were the guidelines that the subcommittee had <br />agreed upon. Ms. Carr stated that with the exception of that one issue, all of the <br />guidelines contained in the proposed resolution had been agreed to. Mr. Glickert <br />asked how many members would comprise the board and he asked Ms. Carr how <br />many of those members did she anticipate would to be non-residential property <br />owners. Ms. Carr stated that the subcommittee is suggesting that each <br />Councilmember be allowed to appoint up to two members. She stated that although it <br />was her opinion that non-residential property owners should be included, she had not <br />necessarily thought about a percentage recommended not more than a third or a <br />quarter since she could not imagine there would be that many. Ms. Carr stated that <br />there would be some that have information on land-use or tax policy and since they do <br />pay property tax they might have something to add to the conversation. She stated <br />. <br />that she was hesitant about restricting Council from making certain appointmentsMr. <br />Glickert asked if the Mayor would also be allowed to make two appointments. Mr. Kraft <br />stated that she would have two appointments. Mr. Glickert questioned whether the <br />non-residential property owners would be included within the fourteen appointments. <br />Mr. Kraft stated that they would be. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked if it would make sense to set aside two seats, one for non-residential <br />property owners and the other for a representative of Washington University. Ms. Carr <br />stated that although it would be a great idea to include Washington University, the <br />subcommittee had not thought in terms of setting aside seats, but merely the act of <br />appointing fourteen members that could consist of these two classifications. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe stated that although he does not know the authenticity of this statement, it <br />was his thinking that someone had indicated that Washington University did not want a <br />seat at the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert stated that it seems like whenever Washington University has had a <br />project that they have come before the City utilizing our process, and that they <br />routinely invite us to a number of things, so his question would be whether the City <br />currently has anything close to this type of a relationship with Washington University as <br />it relates to this proposal, City Manager Walker stated that the City does not have a <br />formal relationship with Washington University that is similar to this proposal, although <br />there is the consulting aspect that is initiated whenever they have new projects for our <br />consideration. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch stated that there is a slight disconnect between the “Be it resolved,” <br />paragraph in Ms. Carr’s resolution and the items the advisory board would discuss. <br />She stated that if the ”Be it resolved” is really focused on development and <br />redevelopment, public works, capital and parking, her thought is that the residents of <br />this community and not business owners who might profit by the discussion or by work <br />in different neighborhoods of the City. She thought there was a bit of a conflict of <br />interest to have non-residents on the board if talking about the “Be it resolved”. She <br />said the “Be it resolved”, is very different than the request to examine the following <br />issues which included many of the money issues. Mayor Welsch stated it is very <br />different from the bottom of Ms. Carr’s second page “to examine the following issues” <br />which is really focused on the monetary impact, the PILOTs, lack of PILOTs, our <br />relationships and what we get from them. She said this is much closer to what can be <br />accomplished in six months. She is uncomfortable with non-residents being involved <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />