MLK Jr. St.

Also on the agenda for Tuesday's city council meeting is a proposal to investigate changing one of the streets in Carbondale from its current name to Martin Luther King Jr. Street. A student group pushed mightily back about 2008 to change the name of a street in town to that of MLK Jr. but the push for that only lasted about a semester and ended when the prime movers in the group graduated and left town. Since this impetus for a name change now apparently comes from community residents rather than students without long term ties to Carbondale, something will more likely happen.

Since any name change would result in significant inconvenience for any residents along the street, due to them having to update their addresses on all official correspondence. One proposed way to get around this is to make the name change unofficial as when the council voted to unofficially rename two streets after retiring council members Chris Wissmann and Jane Adams. Doing this would put King's name on street signs in town but the official name of the street would remain the same.

Tourism part 13

In case you missed the city council meeting last night, and from the number of empty seats, a lot of people did, the Council spent 2 hours discussing what do do about the lack of a tourism bureau and eventually decided ask City Manager Kevin Baity and city staff to recreate the Convention and Tourism Bureau in such a form that the newly reconstituted entity retains certification and the $60,000 grant from the state.  Council directed Baity to have a proposal ready for the next council meeting but since that is August 7, the August 21 meeting date is more likely.  Under state law, Baity would only have 48 hours to hammer out a contract in order to get it posted with enough advanced notice for the August 7 meeting.

Early on in the 2 hour meeting, Chris Wissmann strongly advanced reasons for turning over tourism duties in toto to Southernmost Illinois but the weight of the rest of the council was against him.  Corine McDaniels pushed strongly for reconstituting the existing bureau under city control with the organization committing to assume the roughly $30,000 in debt accumulated by the old Bureau, which, if the discussion by the council carries through, will be retired by city funds.

The city reconstituting the Bureau is also contingent upon the members of the current BoT of the Bureau resigning, which interim executive director Richard Wright said would happen by the end of the week, with the exception of Councilman Wissmann. The seven people nominated to the board by Mayor Fritzler last April (note:  I am one of them), would then assume seats on the new board and start a search for a new executive director, likely first appointing another interim director.

The Carbondale Observer has some thoughts on the topic

More from Wissmann on Tourism

Here's the remainder of Councilman Wissmann's email on why he supports turning the city's tourism efforts over to Southernmost Illinois:

Here are my revised reasons for preferring Southernmost to a reconstituted Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau:

(1) We'd need to pay off the CCTB's sizable debt, for which the city isn't responsible. That debt stands at about $40,000- and mounting. We'd also need to extricate the CCTB from some bad deals, like the lease, which is costing them an exorbitant amount. Our money should go into productive tourism promotion and not a bailout necessitated by poor management and board oversight.

(2) By the time we kick off the current CCTB board members and replace them, get the new board to meet, create new bylaws, figure out what it wants in a new director, advertise the position, conduct interviews, and hire someone, we could be in October or November. If we go with Southernmost, however, we would not need to rebuild- we could start moving by August at the latest, in partnership with a good organization with a proven track record.

(3) We really need to market the entire region, rather than just Carbondale. Southernmost has the wine trails in their territory, we have the hotels. Southernmost has the Shawnee, we have the restaurants and university and nightlife. We can successfully appeal to far more people with a regional approach than if we remain independent. On the other hand- especially if the Jackson County Board signs with Southernmost- staying with the CCTB could send the signal that we don't want to work together with the rest of the region, and reinforce the mage with which the CCTB saddled our city.

(4) Though the Illinois Office of Tourism encourages cooperation, bureaus can only expend state dollars on the regions in which they are certified. Thus, if we reconstitute the CCTB as a certified bureau to exclusively market the city, then hire Southernmost or another bureau to handle cooperative, regional marketing efforts, we will probably encounter some frustrating limitations that we could overcome by joining a single bureau.

(5) Due to past performance- and ongoing political theater- even with a completely new board and director, I see the CCTB as an incredibly hard sell to the public. The brand is damaged beyond repair. If we were to create an energy or financial startup, we would not go with Enron or Bear Stearns, even with a new director and board. Let's not go with the local tourism equivalent.

Wissman on Tourism

Chris Wissmann sent out the email below to the council detailing his reasons for supporting the choice of  Southernmost Illinois over a reconstituted Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau:

Today I spoke with Jan Kemmerling at the Illinois Office of Tourism, and she corrected a few misconceptions I had regarding our situation. Accordingly, I have revised my reasons for endorsing Southernmost and included them below. Meanwhile, I hope I can share a few additional thoughts.

Certainly, I understand- and have vocally advocated on behalf of- greater city oversight of how tax dollars allocated for tourism are spent. And I understand the reticence of the council to turn over a sizable sum of money- ranging in recent years to as much as $317,000- to an organization that will not exclusively market Carbondale as a tourism destination. In other words, we should not want a great percentage of Carbondale's tourism budget spent to promote riverboat gambling in Metropolis.

There is a way around this, however- and it is part of Southernmost's proposal: The city would contract with Southernmost to serve as our certified bureau and  we would provide a modest sum to them- say, the city's $65,000 in state matching funds- to include Carbondale in their regional marketing efforts. (The city should place conditions on the use of those funds to ensure that we are not funding our competition, but cooperating to everyone's greater good.)

The great majority of the city's tourism budget could then go to a local office. And Southernmost is willing to open a semi-autonomous subsidiary with a Carbondale office, staff, and board that would be exclusively dedicated to marketing Carbondale events and attractions. (The council could appoint the board, or even, in a capacity similar to that of the Local Liquor Control Commission, serve as the Carbondale Tourism Commission. The latter option would require that the board comply with the Open Meetings Act, and help foster transparency.)

Should Southernmost do this, the city would benefit in numerous ways, including from economies of scale. Southernmost, for example, already has a capable director, so the Carbondale office would not need a director, but a manager, saving in personnel costs. As part of Southernmost, the office wouldn't need to incur numerous other expenses, like a separate audit- those items would get folded into Southernmost's existing budget.

Should the city council feel it wants more control than that option allows, we still could hire Southernmost as our certified bureau, again for a modest sum, and charge them with including us in their regional tourism mission. Meanwhile, we could set up an independent or in-house local office with its own staff and board. This would, however, require taking on all the expenses required by a fully independent or in-house office, including a director's salary- meaning that less money would get spent on promoting the city- but it doesn't preclude hiring Southernmost as our certified bureau.

Under any circumstance, a local office will require some time to set up. But at least Southernmost can immediately include Carbondale into their ongoing promotion of the region while a local office organizes.

In any event, in my meetings and conversations with them, Southernmost's director and board have expressed how open they are to serving Carbondale. They are polite, respectful, professional, and willing to be flexible.

The mayor and city manager have also met with them; I know that Southernmost's director and board are also willing to meet with you. I hope you'll take the time to do so, and think that you will come away as impressed as I was.

July 17 City Council Meeting

Was busy with other stuff earlier in the evening so didn't tune into last night's city council meeting until the discussion on what to do about tourism.

Representatives of two organizations, ILLINOISouth and Southermost Illinois, were on hand making presentations (the Williamson County Tourism Bureau had said it was not interested in partnering with Carbondale and the proposal regarding working with the Carbondale Park District has gone by the wayside).  Should Carbondale partner with either one, the city would be an outlier in the organization, lying at the far Southern end of the region covered by ILLINOISouth and at the northern end of that covered by Southernmost Illinois.

Of the two organizations, Southernmost Illinois is the better fit, as its main office is located in Anna and the organization promotes tourism in the seven counties to the south of us, which is where Carbondale would focus if it wants to develop itself as a tourism hub.  Ed Benyas, representing the Jackson County Board, spoke to the council in favor of Southernmost Illinois, indicating that the county had opted to partner with the organization to promote Jackson County tourism. 

Southernmost Illinois also indicated, if I understood correctly, they would give Carbondale three members on the organization's board as well as open an office in Carbondale, while ILLINOISouth only indicated they would dedicate a staff member to the community, with no guarantee to open an office.  Southernmost Illinois appeared much more willing to accommodate the city, as the amount of money Carbondale would bring to the organization exceeds its total current budget.

Council's major concern, and the reason city staff proposes bringing the tourism function in-house, is the lack of control the city would have by outsourcing tourism functions and the fear that tourist activities within the city would not get appropriate attention.    Both City Manager Kevin Baity and Mayor Fritzler noted the city would lose $60,000 in state funding for this year by turning over tourism functions to another organization, however to retain the funding would require the city to re-establish the now defunct Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau as a city organization and assume responsibility for its debts, totaling about $34,000.  Councilwoman Corene McDaniels prefers this option as well, while Councilman Chris Wissmann appeared to lean towards joining with Southernmost Illinois.

In the end, after a short recess, the city took no action, instead deciding to study the situation and various proposals further, though it appears that either partnering with Southernmost Illinois or re-establishing a CCTB under city control are the preferred options.

In citizen comments, a pair of John A. Logan students asked the city for help in re-establishing mass transit from Carbondale to John A. Logan College.  Since SIUC moved its automotive technology facilities from Carterville to the new facilities at the Southern Illinois Airport, SIUC has discontinued the Saluki Express route from the SIUC campus that many JALC students residing in Carbondale used to get to the campus.  Councilman Monty suggested Jackson County Mass Transit while Wissmann recommended looking at Williamson County RIDES program.  Lance Jack said the city should investigate some way to provide transportation for JALC students in Carbondale to the campus and the mayor asked the students to give their names to city staff with a promise to look further into the matter to see what could be done.  The city does provide over $14,000 in funding annually to keep Saluki Express buses running when school is out of session so perhaps some additional funds could be directed to re-establishing a JALC route.

Bye Bye Debbie

It appears the CCTB board met the night after the city ended its contract with the CCTB and fired executive director Debbie Moore. Looks like an olive branch extended towards the city.  However, I have to wonder if, given the support of the CCTB by tax revenues, if meetings such as this are in violation of Illinois' Open Meetings Act, which requires public notice of meetings by any organization supported by tax monies.  Organizations covered by the act include:

 all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the
state, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other
municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any
subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and
subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax
revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof

As has been noted before, most of the funding for the CCTB comes from Carbondale's motel tax, which certainly seems to cover the CCTB and by extension, its governing board.

According to the Southern's story, Councilman Chris Wissmann, a voting member of the board, was not notified of the meeting, which also appears a violation of the Act.

More on Pepsi

Here's a link to minutes of the city council meeting at which the agreement with Pespi MidAmerica was enxtended until 2025 (scroll down to Item 5.10).  The reason given for the fifteen year extention was Pepsi MidAmerica's providing lighting for Carbondale High School's sports facilities:

The City later entered into an agreement with the High School for the construction of tennis courts needed for use by the Carbondale Community High School “Terrier” tennis team, the students and Carbondale community at large. Then, at the joint request of the City and the High School, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Marion, Illinois, agreed to install lights at the tennis courts at a cost of $114,000.00, which brought the total amount of financial assistance provided to the City and High School to $864,000.00. In exchange for this, the High School extended its Exclusive Beverage Rights Agreement with Pepsi-Cola Bottling Companyof Marion until March 31, 2025.

The contribution of the lights at the tennis court provided to the High School serves the interest of the

students and the Carbondale community, who also use the courts. In consideration for said contribution, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Carbondale to extend the current Exclusive Beverage Rights Agreement, which covers the Civic Center and City-owned recreational facilities constructed on property located within the Superblock, for an additional ten (10) years or until March 31, 2025, which will mirror the addendum agreement extended by the High School.



The vote on Feb 8 was 5 to 1 with only Chris Wissmann voting against.  In an email, Councilman Wissmann says he voted against the agreement becasue the cost to the city cause the city to have to vend Pepsi products for significantly more than Civic Center users would pay at local grocery stores.  The agreement at the time was slated to expire Feb. 23 and, from what I remember hearing at the time, Coke was quite interested in submitting a bid but the city felt the sports field lighting sufficient inducement to sign the fifteen year extention with Pepsi.  Nothing illegal about the contract but it certainly went through quickly.

CCTB Bylaws

Borrowed a copy of the Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau's from councilman (and CCTB board member ) Chris Wissmann, and, as councilman Don Monty pointed out during tonight's city council meeting, you may not like what the board did, but they did not violate any rules in dong so.  According to Article 3, section B:  "The Board of Directors shall consist o of not less than fifteen (15) members, including the officers."  Nowhere in the bylaws does it state anything about a maximum number. According to Article 5, section C,  "A simple majority of the current Board of Directors shall constitutes a quorum for the purpose of conducting business."

Further, in Article 5, section E, "All actions of the Board of Directors shall require an affirmative vote by a simple majority of the Board Members present."  Since the size of the board is not proscribed by the bylaws, the board appears to have the power to change the number of members on it by a simple vote and vote directors to those positions by a simple majority.  Nor is there anything in the bylaws requiring such actions to take place at a subsequent meeting.

Apparently due to the contract the CCTB has signed with the city, giving the Bureau revenue from the city's motel tax, the city gets to appoint a certain number of members to the board, currently 8.  According to councilman Wissmann, there is no language in the current contract mandating the city have a certain percentage of members on the board, something he hopes to insert in the next contract.

Further, from my reading of the board's bylaws, just because the Mayor chooses a slate of appointees the city retains under its current contract, the Board of Directors is under no obligation to seat them. Article 3, Section C states "Directors shall be elected by a simple majority of the current membership of the board."  Plus, Article 3, Section F:  "The appointment of individuals recommended to serve as Directors holding designated seats shall be approved as Board members at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall act on all applications for request of a seat on the Board of Directors and may approve or deny such application in accordance with the Bylaws" (italics mine). Theoretically, the current Board could keep voting down Mayor Fritzler's appointees and keep doing business as long as a quorum of members of the expanded Board attend meetings.  I don't think they will do this, but then no-one that I had spoken with expected them to vote to double the size of the board either.

Over-board

As the Carbondale Times reported, and as I posted earlier this week, the Carbondale Convention and Tourism board voted last week to greatly expand the size of the board.  According to an email I received, the board expanded from seventeen (15 voting) to 31 members, 29 voting and Mayor Joel Fritzler and someone representing Rep. Jerry Costello as ex-officio non-voting members.  That's an awful lot of people to oversee a $400,000 budget.

It appears that two members of the board voted against the expansion, Councilman Chris Wissmann and the Jackson Count Board's represenative, Ed Benyas.  Then, after the vote, all of the current city appointees, with the exception of Wissmann, were appointed to the newly created seats.

Wedding Chapel and Beer Garden

Last night's council meeting produced a bit more controversy than I had anticipated. The request for beer garden status for Sports Blast's new outdoor patio cum wedding chapel ran into a roadblock when Councilpeople Adams and Monty, long with Mayor Fritzler, voted against granting approval, splitting the council vote 3-3, meaning approval was not granted.

Sports Blast's location was the sticking point. Currently, beer gardens in Carbondale have no restrictions on noise level during weekend hours.  People living on Giant City Road can often hear music coming from Pinch Penny Pub's garden during the weekend, even though Pinch Penny is located about 2 miles away.  Sports Blast is located in an area zoned agricultural, adjacent to the high school and a planned Hindu temple, with a number of residences and apartments nearby.  Given complaints about noise from other beer gardens Monty, Adams and Fritzler expressed concerns about the possible noise coming from the new facility disturbing residents of the area. 

The application contained language indicating the SB planned to play "soft entrance music" for when the bride arrived and exited the ceremony and expected to play music only between 5 p.m and 11 p.m.  However, under the Liquor Code as currently written, beer gardens are exempt from sound level ordinances over the weekend.  Ergo, if the beer garden license passed, the city could do noting legally should Sports Blast play music more loudly than anticipated or past 11 p.m.  When asked if he would include the language regarding time and music constraints as part of the application, making them legally enforceable, Sports Blast demurred, saying they felt it unfair to treat them differently from other beer gardens in the city.  After this, the vote went ahead with Fronabarger, Wissmann and McDainiels voting to approve and, as noted earlier, Fritzler, Adams and Monty voting again (Jack had to recuse himself, due to his ownership of the beer selling Fat Patties).  Wissman and McDaniels made a point of saying they felt it important to encourage business growth as much as possible within the community.

Sports Blast then, upon invitation from the city attorney, had a private discussion with him, and, when they returned to council chambers, announced the company was willing to restrictions as enforceable parts of its application.  The beer garden application went before council again, this time passing unanimously, though Wissmann and McDaniels both made a point of saying they would have preferred to pass the application as originally written.

Liquor Ordinance

Tonight's city council meeting has the revision to the city's liquor ordinance on the agenda.  As proposed, it would allow grocery stores to get a class C2 license, allowing them to sell beer and wine only and not if they have a gas station within 200 feet.  Councilmen Chris Wissmann's comments about the proposed ordinance can be found here and Don Monty's are here.  Councilwoman Jane Adams had this to say  about the ordinance:



We have a lengthy agenda at our meeting Tuesday, but the most important item is an amendment to the City’s liquor ordinance. I think that we have tried your patience with our deliberations, but I hope this is the end or at least the beginning of the end.

We will be considering an amendment that allows the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores. At their July 7 meeting, after addressing comments and questions from the audience, the Liquor Advisory Board voted to recommend the more restrictive and limited sales of beer, wine, and spirits of the two proposals put before them (see my last blog, July 6).

I’ve talked with a lot of people about the issue and have found that most people I’ve spoken with first say they want beer and wine in grocery stores. But as we talk many of them say they would like to be able to buy spirits as well as beer and wine in grocery stores, and they’d like to be able to buy alcoholic beverages in gas station convenience stores, as well.

The amendments before us also require liquor sales in grocery stores to end at 11:00 p.m., rather than 1:59, which is closing time for all other establishments that sell liquor. And it has a lower fee for grocery store licenses than for regular package liquor licenses.

I'm not a big fan of the "grocery store" ordinance as the restriction regarding closeness to gas stations is nonsensical since we have at least three drive up liquor windows in town,  creating another class of licenses adds unneeded bureaucracy,  and not including gas stations just means we will have to reopen the whole thing in another year or so.  I would also like to see the ordinance take effect 6 months to a year after passage to allow currently existing stores time to adjust their product mix.  We currently have 8 liquor stores in town.  Based on the number of liquor only stores in surrounding communities that allow liquor sold in grocery and convenience stores ( only 1 in Murphysboro, 3 in Marion), I'd bet we see 4 of the current stores close up within 5 years after the ordinance is passed. 

Can't be there tonight, but based on their past actions, I expect Mayor Frizler and councilmen Monty and Fronbarger to vote in favor of some form of a revised ordinance and Wissmann to strongly oppose it.  Councilwoman McDaniels has shown little opposition to granting new liquor licenses in the past, so I'd expect her to vote in favor.  Lance Jack and Jane Adams, I'm not certain about.  Both on on record as supporting local businesses as the heart of the community, but given Jack's struggles to get his own liquor license, I don't think he could oppose some other business applying for one. Adams doesn't have  a track record yet, save for voting in favor of liquor licenses for the Icebox and Elite Lounge, though her comments above lead me to think she leans towards a "yes" vote as well.  Ergo, if the vote tonight goes the way I think it will, and the proposal doesn't get tabled for more work, the council votes 6 to 1 in favor with Chris Wissmann the lone opponent.

Chris Wissmann on Liquor Ordinance Changes

Emailed Councilman Wissmann for his take on the proposed changes to the liquor ordinance changes,  With his permission, below is his response:

I would understand the arguments about consumer choice if alcohol was not already dirt cheap and easily available in Carbondale. Liquor isn't tube socks- someone who buys a case of cheap imported footware isn't as a result going to drive well over the speed limit, jump a median, and kill passengers in an oncoming car. There is no need to further erode the economic barriers to overconsumption in Carbondale, low as they already are. And should the price of liquor decline through the competition brought by an expansion of licenses, unless the volume of liquor sales also increases (which would require a substantial and unlikely increase in local of-age population and buying power), then the city will actually see a decrease in tax revenues from liquor sales- the city derives more from a $7.99 six-pack than it does off a $3 six-pack.

Those who think that seven local families who own eight liquor stores constitute a monopoly need to think about what to call a situation when three or four massive corporations, with pockets deep enough to bankrupt small competitors through unfair trade practices like dumping, take over the local retail-liquor industry. That certainly does not constitute an expansion of customer choice.

There's many few technical parts of the proposals that bother me. Here are a few:

*       If under either proposal we must suspend or revoke a grocery license, must that licensee completely shut down operations, or can it continue to sell groceries and merchandise other than liquor? If the latter, then we're creating an incredibly unfair system- liquor stores can completely go out of business if they're forced to close for even a few weeks, but groceries lose just a small portion of their business. (That, and the issues raised by underage patrons, is the point of the separate entrance requirement.)

*       Walmart, Schnuck's, and Kroger can all afford to pay the same license fee as local licensees. So can Walgreen's and CVS if somehow they qualify as groceries under the proposed ordinances. There's absolutely no reason to give them discounts on license fees. None.

*       Why under these proposals can grocery stores continue to operate twenty-four/seven if they shut off liquor sales at an appointed hour, while restaurants, bars, and liquor stores cannot? Either everyone shuts down at the close of liquor sales, or everyone can operate as long as they stop liquor sales by the appointed hour.

It's also worth noting that thus far this issue has generated only ten constituent emails, maximum, during the last month. During the five days between the announcement of the Saluki Way proposal and the council's vote, I received about sixty emails, phone calls, and even a couple of snail-mail letters. When former mayor Brad Cole mentioned the possibility of selling the city's public-works department, I received more than one-hundred citizen contacts during the following two weeks. During the last six months or so that expansion of the Class C licenses has allegedly been an issue- fanned mostly by a shallow news media- I've literally received more emails about backyard chickens (mostly in favor, by the way). Supposedly seven-thousand people signed petitions to get liquor into grocery stores, but a lot fewer people than that voted in the municipal election last April, so I don't see real grassroots support for it.

Council on Fronabarger

Emailed the city council members asking for their reasoning on the choice for Lee Fronabarger to serve out the remainder of Joel Fritzler's term.  No response from Lance Jack or Corine McDaniels.  Responses from Wissmann and Fritzler were pretty short indicating that the council had discussed the candidates and come to consensus on Fronabarger.

Adams and Monty gave more detailed responses.  Both felt that they had a strong pool of candidates to choose from but the major factors they felt distinguished Fronabarger were twofold:

1.  his service on numerous city committees, both citing his current service on the city's Planning Commission giving him insight into both city and business needs.

2.  his experience and involvement in writing the recently adopted city comprehensive plan.  As the comprehensive plan became an issue in the mayoral election, with various candidates either viewing the plan as an idealistic starting point (Mahoney) or blueprint for future city action (Ritzel), Adams and Monty both felt that Fronabarger's work with the plan would be valuable as the council works to improve the quality of life in Carbondale.

In response to a followup question about lobbying for candidates for the position, no council member reported contact by any member of the community to argue for the appointment of any of the seven people to applied for the position, though several did mention the topic arising in the course of other conversation.  The closest to any active advocating for any council replacement was a letter received by the council for someone who ultimately did not submit an application for the post.

City Council Meeting

Hopefully, the length of last night's meeting was indicative of the new members and mayor getting their footing and not of meetings to come.  Meeting started with the Liquor Control Commission at 7 p.m. which quickly approved, 6-0, a liquor license for the soon to open Premier Lounge on West Jackson. Don Monty probably set the tone for his councilship with several  questions indicating he had looked over the application quite thoroughly, including questioning the capital reserves the business had and the reasoning behind the shift from a business model relying on 100% liquor sales to one deriving 20% of its revenues from food sales.  Newly re-elected councilman Lance Jack was noticeably absent.

Next up was the approval of the Icebox Bar and Grille's application for a A2 license, with requires 51% of sales to come from food.  Both Monty and Jane Adams questioned the applicant, Kevin Kirkwood, closely regarding the application especially about such concerns as parking, funding, the track record of other restaurants at the location and the murders that took place after an event there last fall.  Several people spoke in favor of the application, most from a "give the man a chance" view, while Sandy Litecky of the Arbor District raised concerns about the effect of the business on the nearby neighborhood.  The application passed 3-2, with Chris Wissmann and Corene McDaniels voting against.

Moving onto the regular meeting, Lance Jack arrived and Mayor Fritzler quickly proclaimed this Mental Health Month and Public Works Week and presented a pair of Historic Preservation Awards to two properties on properties on West Walnut.

The consent agenda, which came up next, was the high point of the meeting as Lance Jack asked for individual votes on appointments to boards and commissions and an ordinance approving a right of way license agreement with Delta Communications.  The right of way vote was just to emphasize that fiber optic commissions were coming to Carbondale.  Jack then proceeded to get very hot under the collar about Mayor Fritzler's appointment of Jane Adams to the Carbondale Main Street board, since Jack has been the council representative to Main Street for several years and wanted to know why he had not been re-appointed.  The two men argued for a few minutes with Mayor Fritzler finally summing up his reasoning for Adams' appointment as (and I'm paraphrasing here), "because I wanted to".

The change in the business development plan for the new Goodwill location (moving to the old Rex Video store next to Applebee's) and a couple of rezoning ordinances passed with out any controversy or question, though Don Monty was in his element here, making comments and questioning the applicants about specifications relating to the requests.  He likely added 15 minutes to the length of the meeting with his comments on each property. The man knows his stuff, though it's doubtful he changed the outcome as all three passed 6-0.

Up next were resolutions declaring Fair Days for the Sunset Concerts, Southern Illinois Irish Festival and Neghborhood Co-op Local Harvest Picnic (which, in the interest of disclosure, almost all of the council said they were members of).  Fair Days designation allows the consumption but not sale of alcohol on city property.  These all passed 5-1, with Lance Jack abstaining and Corene McDaniel, as is her wont, voting no.  She made a point of saying her vote wasn't against the events but rather the consumption of alcohol on park property and requested the sponsors of the Sunset Concerts look into making one of the concerts at Turley Park alcohol free.

The other high point of the meeting was the attempt to pas an ordinance authorizing the sale of city property at 709 West Pecan to the owner of adjoining property so she could build a garage.  When making her statement to council, the purchaser rambled on about people speeding down the alley, the cost of removing trees from her property and flooding before getting to her point that she thought the city was asking too much for its property and she did not want to purchase it at that price.  The council, a bit flummoxed, since it thought a deal had been completed, withdrew the ordinance and directed asst. city manager Kevin Baity (who looked really thrilled at the idea) to meet with her and work out a deal.

After citizen and council comments, the council went into closed session for about 2 hours to choose someone to complete Joel Fritzler's unexpired council term.  Tom Grant and Mike Riley, both candidates for council in the last election, along with a reporter from the local TV station, hung around for the two hours to find out the council had not selected either of them, choosing Lee Fronabarger, who also ran in the last election, instead.

Citizen Comments

Decided to listen to citizen and council comments from last night's city council meeting. Up first, Chuck Petrocki spoke on the privatization of Atlanta GA and Urbana IL's water supplies. Atlanta's experience was an increase in unreliability of water service, with an increase in dirty water and water outages. Urbana's privately locally owned water system sold out to American Water and almost immediately saw an increase in boil water orders. Urbana's mayor even traveled to Germany to American Water's headquarters to ask about re-purchasing the water system. He was refused,the company saying they were willing to sell the system by not to a municipality as that would set a bad precedent. His comments ended with a lng round of applause from the audience.

Next up, Rich Whitney with an invitation. Waddya bet he invites the mayor and council to the presentation of Flow Thursday night? Yep,I'm right.

Berardino Baratt next, advocating the council think long term, rather than short term, which in his case means looking at alternative energy sources. He also supports both a sales tax and property tax increase in the short term.

Up now Treesong, who also doesn't want the water system privatized and advocates putting the water system eventually in a public trust.

Now, Hugh Williams, wants to speak against the privatization of the water, laying blame for the fiscal problems of the city partially on the tax increase for Saluki Way, along with a couple of digs at the mayor's traveling.

And here's Jane Adams, who requests the mayor come to the next city council meeting with documents showing due diligence has been done regarding the legal ramifications selling C'dales system to a private system, as well as a throughout assessment of the value of the system by a third party before it is sold. She adds that she has heard from others that the quoted $42 million figure is a "fire sale" price for this asset.

Now, Bill Weinhoffer who is speaking for the city plumber and pipefitters union which is also concerned about the sale. His speach is pretty short.

Curt Wilson is opposed to the privatization but is more concerned about climate change, at from his comments.

Up now, Yolanda Kaminski, who contacted the Food and Water Watch in Washington DC and asked for info to be sent to her to pass along to the council. She made copies for the council which tey take and will distribute.

Finally, Rafal Kos has one question: where is the company that is interested in buying the water system so that it can answer questions about the purchase.

The mayor then comments that there is no proposal on the agenda for this meeting or the next to vote on the privatization and that the only thing on the next meeting's agenda is a discussion of the property tax level. He then says that to call the privatization a proposal is an overstatement, as that misrepresents the fact that it is one of six options that have been made available to the council and public. He also comments that the city has been approached by several companies over the years about buying the city's water, but there are no current discussion.

Chris Wissmann then comments that a lot of the discussion misses the point, that the precipitating factor is runaway pension inflation, without which the city wouldn't have the financial difficulties it finds itself in. It's not enough to oppose water privatization, he adds so "let's not form a new party of no" or even" float vague exhortations" to look for other solutions to the problem, we need some real specifics from those who came out tonight regarding what tax packages you will accept. Long term the city needs real pension reform. Taxes can only be raised so much. He ends by commenting that pensions need to be restructured in such a way that the people who have earned them get them while keeping them affordable for the city.

City Council Meeting

Didn't get to the city council meeting until about 8:45 last night. Apparently comments from citizens about Mayor Cole's water privatization "option E" took up better than half the meeting time and, even though the meeting ended at 8:08, there were still a few people discussing it when I arrived.

Some notable points of the meeting were Mayor Cole's comment that there were no bidders on the water works and no action had been pursued on it aside from drafting the proposal (have to wonder where the $42 million figure came from then), Councilwoman Mary Pohnman's presentation of budget alternatives, and Councilman Chris Wissmann's call for those opposing privatization to come up with their own proposals.

Expect to see yard signs popping up throughout town opposing privatization and a good sized turnout for the IMC's presentation of Flow next week.