Frankly, I expected a little more controversy on the library. Despite all the protests against the mayor for giving up on a brand new library, the Council swallowed its pride and approved the reconstruction that was on the table. It was apparently so uncontroversial that neither the State Journal or the Cap Times covered it.
On a similar topic...
Yesterday I put up a post about Ald. Shiva Bidar's attempts to require a 3/4 majority on the Council to approve the Central Library reconstruction language supported by the mayor. I was not clear on the basis of her amendment, but in an email, she cleared up her intent.
According to an email we received by Attorney May "it is whether the purpose of the appropriation changes, not whether the project changes, that governs if 15 votes is needed." His memo states that he does not believe in this case the purpose of the appropriation has changed. I respectfully disagree.
...The purpose of the appropriation as approved in the budget was a central library on a new site as part of a larger project, involving the sale of current library land and redevelopment of the entire block...The project now being proposed is a complete renovation on the current site, no sale of land, $5 million in private fundraising, no entire block development. That to me is a change of purpose of the appropriation.
Ultimately, the library plan ended up getting approved 18-1, so debate on the matter did not hamper this particular issue, but it will likely be relevant in the future.