Latest news with #TheCityCouncil
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
City Council moves request for contributing money to added Paramount work
Apr. 8—Work will address bump out curb for ADA requirements The City Council, by a vote of 3-2 with two council members not in attendance, moved out of its work session a request by Austin Area Arts to help pay for a proposed rework on the sidewalk as part of its renovation project of the Paramount Theatre. Austin Area Arts Executive Director Thomas Robbins pitched the request to the council Monday night to help pay for a $93,000 rework of a proposed Americans with Disabilities Act modification to the front entry that would feature a bump-out curb. The request was for the city to pay half, or $46,500. According to plans submitted in the council's work session packet, the bump out would reach across the length of the main entrance of the Paramount with a pair of ramps leading up to the sidewalk at new painted cross walk locations. However, while council members in general supported the extra work, which wouldn't be charged to the main body of the renovation project, there was some question as to how much the city would chip in. "I don't feel too comfortable putting a number out there," said First Ward's Laura Helle, who ultimately voted for moving the question out of the work session. Second Ward's Mike Postma voiced concern over the amount requested by Austin Area Arts. "I'm really struggling on that half number right now," Postma said in voting against moving it out of the work session along with At-Large Council Member Jeff Austin, who questioned why this need was coming up now rather than during the planning process. The council will vote on whether or not to approve helping with the project at its next meeting, though regardless of the outcome, Robbins said that this is needed work. It likely would require extra fundraising if the council votes against Austin Area Arts' request. "This is required of ourselves for accessibility," Robbins said. "One way or another ... we need to get it done." Work on the renovation began in January and the hope is that work can be done for a soft opening during the Austin ArtWorks Festival in August.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
City Council considers study on feasibility of rebuilding or moving obelisk
The City Council unanimously voted to approve spending $100,000 from the city's general fund for a study assessing the feasibility of rebuilding or moving the Soldiers' Monument at Wednesday's City Council meeting. The study was directed from an October resolution passed by the council in a 5-4 vote. Originally intended to explore the feasibility of moving the obelisk to the Santa Fe National Cemetery, the resolution was later modified to direct the city manager to explore the feasibility of moving it to any new location or rebuilding it on the Plaza without taking any further action. Constructed in 1867 in honor of Civil War Union soldiers, the obelisk has long been controversial because of a plaque also honoring soldiers who died in battles with 'savage Indians' during the same period. The word 'savage' was chiseled away in 1974 and on Indigenous Peoples Day in 2020 the monument was partially toppled by protestors. Less than two months after the October resolution's passage, state District Court Judge Matthew Wilson rendered his decision in a lawsuit the Hispanic fraternal organization Union Protectiva de Santa Fe filed against the city in 2021 seeking for the monument to be rebuilt. Wilson's Dec. 19 ruling required the city to remove the box that had been surrounding the base of the obelisk since it was torn down within 30 days and to either rebuild the obelisk within 180 days or to follow a little-used process outlined by the State Historic Preservation Office. City Attorney Erin McSherry has said previously her understanding of the ruling also includes the option that the city take no further action after removing the box. The city decided not to appeal Wilson's ruling and in January removed the box surrounding the obelisk and cleaned it of graffiti but had not taken any other action until now. Wednesday's vote was to allocate funding for the study but was not an approval of an actual contract, which is still in the process of being negotiated. A request for qualifications was published on the city's website earlier in the year and received one response, city spokesperson Regina Ruiz wrote in a Wednesday email. 'There wasn't a robust response to that but there is a firm that's been identified that's capable of doing that work," City Manager Mark Scott said Wednesday. A scope of work document states the study would include conducting a structural assessment of the obelisk and use that to determine the "services, timelines, and costs" required to rebuild it to either a "like or similar condition" to its pre-2020 state or its pre-2020 condition without the "savage Indians" plaque. It would also evaluate the feasibility and costs of moving the monument to the National Cemetery or another location, "including all logistics or minimizing damage" and to summarize all the findings in a written report. At a Feb. 19 Quality of Life committee meeting, Scott said the contract is still being negotiated and the scope of work will include some type of public engagement process. In response to a question at the committee meeting, he said his understanding is that the study can be completed within 60 to 90 days. Its unclear if the city would be penalized if the city did ultimately decided to rebuild the obelisk but did so past the 180 day limit. "There is an understanding that timing is very critical," he said. On Wednesday, Scott said the study will likely cost less than $100,000 but that future actions would likely cost much more. "We don't believe that the initial work is going to cost that much, maybe even as little as half that much, but we don't know where it goes," he said. At the committee meeting, several councilors said they would like to have either a special meeting to discuss the obelisk or to receive a presentation at a regular council meeting regarding the city's options, something Scott said he will accommodate.
CBS News
26-02-2025
- Business
- CBS News
City Council approves Mayor Brandon Johnson's $830 million infrastructure bond deal
The City Council narrowly approved Mayor Brandon Johnson's controversial $830 million bond deal to finance neighborhood infrastructure improvements, despite complaints that a back-loaded repayment schedule would inflate the total cost to $2 billion by the time all of the debt is paid off. Under the plan approved by a 26-23 vote, the city would not make any principal payments until 2045, making only interest payments for the first 20 years of the 30-year borrowing plan. The mayor and his supporters have said the bond deal is needed to pay for various necessary infrastructure projects, including road and bridge projects, renovations to city buildings, replacing city vehicles, new street lights and traffic signals, replacing lead service lines, and aldermanic "menu" projects in each ward. However, critics have called the back-loaded structure of the bond deal financially irresponsible, and have argued the total amount of money being borrowed should be reduced, while also changing the structure of the deal to begin making principal payments immediately to lessen the overall cost. "This is about being fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money every single day," Ald. Anthony Beale (9th) said. "This is fiscally irresponsible. The people are asking us to do better. The people of Chicago are paying attention. You can say people ain't paying attention of what's going on down here anymore. You better not say that, because people are paying attention," The 26-23 vote to approve the deal came only after the mayor had to cast a tie-breaking vote to avoid pushing back a final vote on the plan until May 21. Initially, it appeared the City Council was going to proceed with a vote on the deal without debate, but after critics blasted the mayor for moving forward without hearing from any aldermen, the mayor reversed course and agreed to allow debate "as a courtesy." Once debate was underway, Ald. Walter Burnett (27th), Johnson's vice mayor, said approving the bond deal was a "quality of life issue." "Paved streets, safe sidewalks, clean water, and quality of life issues for everyday Chicagoans - these are some of the basic things that people in our community sent us down here to take care of. Some of our communities can't wait. In fact, some of our communities have been waiting for a long time. Some more than others. Maybe some aldermen have the luxury of putting off infrastructure maintenance, but our community needs these investments now," Burnett said. However, Ald. Bill Conway (34th) said because the city would be making only interest payments for the first 20 years of the deal, the overall cost will rise to about $2 billion, with taxpayers on the hook for $137 million a year for the last six years of the deal. Noting he and his wife are currently raising three children between the ages of 2 and 5, he said that would mean "they will be in their 30s and on the hook for an irresponsible decision I cannot stomach making for them today." "No one disputes that many of these investments are essential. However, we have to be honest about the back-loaded nature of this bond structure," he added. Some of the mayor's had claimed the bond deal could be used to balance the budget at the Chicago Public Schools, an allegation the Johnson administration rejected. Nonetheless, before the bond deal passed, the mayor's office agreed to amend the language of the bond deal to clarify that the funding can only be used for infrastructure projects. Conway and Ald. Timmy Knudsen (43rd) had introduced their own proposals to reduce the amount of money being borrowed under the deal, and speeding up the repayment plan. Conway said aldermen shouldn't simply be forced to choose the mayor's plan or nothing. "Why are we acting like this is somehow our only option? Your vote is a no on this plan, not on any plan. Simply put, we can fund important projects and invest in Chicago, but we don't have to mortgage our children's future and saddle them with reckless debt to do it. If we're committing $2 billion over 30 years, we can certainly take three more weeks to craft a responsible proposal that meets our city's needs without compromising its potential," Conway said.
